I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I always thought that the script breakdown (the list of all the elements needed for the movie, like sets, props, costumes, effects, etc.) was made by the director. But recently, I found out it was made by the producer, who sends it off directly to the department heads. But the thing is, I always thought it was the director's job to tell people what to do, not the producer's! Also, if the breakdown is set off from the producer directly to the department heads, how does the director tell the department heads how he wants stuff to look? I know that the director directs the editor and actors while they work, and that he makes storyboards and shot lists with/for the director of photography, but what about props/costumes and such in the breakdown (like I was just talking about)? Does he get sent the breakdown, and then either meets with them to discuss points or sends them descriptions or drawings with the breakdown? Also, if that is the case, how does the line producer know whether he's going to meet them in person, or just send them all drawings, or if he's going to make storyboards/shot lists with the DP or on his own and send them to the DP (for scheduling purposes). Speaking of which, who picks the cast and crew, the director or producer? And who decides whether or not the film will be shot on film or digital, the director or producer? And who buys all the stuff the departments need (for example, the DP needs cameras, the set people need material for sets, etc.)?
How does directing work, exactly?
- Thread starter geniusvisionary
- Start date
But how does the director know what to tell the heads of the departments to do if he doesn't make the script breakdown? Also, who makes the script breakdown?
The director doesn't make the script breakdown but the director
reads the script breakdown. The producer and/or the production
manager and/or the AD does the script breakdown. The director
also reads the script so the director knows what is in the script.
So...
The director will read the script. Then he will read the breakdown.
He sees that in Scene 17 there is a gun. So he says to the Props
Master, "I'd like a Sig SG 550". The Props Master (who knows his
job well and has also read the script) says, "I think a Sig P226 is
more appropriate for this scene." Then they discuss the options.
In the end the director will tell the department head (in this case
the props master) what to get for the scene. If the director says,
"I want the Sig SG 550." The director gets the Sig SG 550.
This goes on for each scene and each department head. The director
doesn't need to make the script breakdown in order to read the script
breakdown and make the decisions needed for his movie.
I assume that the department heads read the script and the script breakdown in the same way the director does, and that they usually have the breakdown with them as they discuss this stuff?
I assume that the department heads read the script and the script breakdown in the same way the director does, and that they usually have the breakdown with them as they discuss this stuff?
That is a correct assumption. Everyone involved reads the script.
During the meetings about the production of the movie everyone
involved will have the breakdowns.
Although you are correct, the department heads also do not read the script in the same way - which is the point of having department heads. As a sound designer I am more concerned with how the film sounds, and that is how I will be thinking when I read a script. (However, I still have to be very aware of how the film looks, as the two are interactive.)
What I find most important is a director who can explain the entire film in ten (10) words or less (i.e. "It's a film about making choices."), and to be able to convey simply and concisely the feel/mood/atmosphere of the project ("I want a feeling of desolation/isolation.")
Some directors have very specific requirements, others give their key people "free reign." Either way can be a great deal of fun or very frustrating - depending upon the director.
Just because I always have to...
As the director you should be thinking about how the final film will sound when you start preproduction. The proper combination of sound and visuals can provide huge amounts of information to the audience without a line of dialog. And by "visuals" I include H/MU, wardrobe, location, set dressing, etc., etc., etc.
As an example I worked on a project where the climax was an action scene; it was shot in a warehouse. The director wanted "evil, dangerous" machine sounds to heighten the tension. The only problem was there were no visuals of machinery of any kind. I spent quite a bit of time - and an unfortunately large piece of his audio post budget - trying to make the idea work, even though I told him at the outset that it probably would not work. Any "animated" machine sound - cutting, sawing, robotic arms, etc. - just had a distracting "what the hell is that" affect and pulled us out of the scene. More "droney" types of sounds were just vague white/pink noises that added nothing at low levels and became annoying at higher volume levels. Even just 15 seconds of B-roll to show machinery would have established the machine sounds which could have been used throughout the scene as the audience has a visual to associate with the sound(s).
This is what happens when things are thought through. A scene in a feature on which I worked had a couple seated in a rowboat. In the story we're jumping from Labor Day to mid autumn. However, the scene was shot in the spring. The location was okay; there were pine trees in the background, and they used artificial fall foliage to occlude the spring flowers. As the scene opens the girl slowly scans the sky. I added the sound of migrating geese, so now she is watching the geese. Simple, but it substantially reinforced the autumn feel of the scene. I made the wind sounds just a touch blustery to increase the "it's starting to get chilly" factor, and used "colder" water sounds. Everything was in place visually to imply the time of year - kudos to the director, location scout, wardrobe and set dresser - and sound completed the illusion.
Last edited:
So, basically, one of two things usually happen:
1. The director and all the department heads read the script. When they meet, they have the script with them and the director goes over important things he wants in regards to the aesthetics of each scene and the movie in general (which the department heads can offer alternatives to).
2. The director and all the department heads read the script. When they meet, they have the script breakdown with them and discuss each relevant item (for example, the director would discuss props with the propmaster). The department heads can offer alternatives to all the director's ideas.
Yes to both scenarios.
Each person has a job to do. The director is the final say on all things
creative. The director discusses every aspect of the movie with each
person involved. Especially on a large project the director does not work
in a vacuum. Skilled, talented, experienced people have a job to do and
that job is to work with the director to make his/her vision happen. In
order for that to happen the director must communicate with the people
making the movie.
And both options you mention can and do happen. I think you're getting
it!
I don't get why it's such a bad idea to make drawings of stuff. Won't the director be able to communicate his vision more clearly if visual references are used, as opposed to just descriptions? Aren't storyboards sometimes used for this, since I've seen storyboards, and they can be very detailed (though I have heard of them being not very detailed). Speaking of which, what are storyboards typically used for?
For most indie filmmakers, both these scenarios are fantasies. These, or similar situations, might be the case on real film sets. On most low budget sets, you'd be lucky if people were actually aware of why you are doing what you're doing. If your script is more than 10 pages long, you'd be lucky if everybody actually skimmed the whole thing at least once. In my last shoot, only myself, my main actress, and my script supervisor had read and memorized the script. Everybody else, whatever the department, was always surprised as to why I did something, or why someone said something. Nobody really knew the script. If I changed something, my main actress and my script supervisor would see it a mile away and ask me why I was changing things, and I'd have to explain it to them. Everybody else just went along.
All this is great advice, if you're running a real set, if you actually have HODs. I don't even know what that is.
For all practical purposes, if you don't have a real budget, and are shooting things with friends and acquaintances, which is the situation for most of us, then YOU have to really do everything. If you don't call the make-up artist to verify that s/he is on his/her way, nobody else will. If you don't go over the lines with your actors to make sure that they know it, nobody else will. If you don't make sure that your sound recordist actually has the equipment that he claims to have, nobody else will. If you don't listen to the recorded tracks to make sure that the intonation in the line for your actor was where you wanted it to be, nobody else will. I'm not sure that most of us have the luxury of HODs.
Storyboarding and visual references are always good. But if you watch enough BTS videos, you'll find that the storyboarding is really a reference, and people change things on the scene all the time based on the particularities of a location or weather or whatever. But if you're one of the lucky ones who can get the people s/he'll be working with to meet, you'd be an absolute fool to give up the chance.
I always do meetings. I always do rehearsals. Any kind of prep work where as many people as possible can meet, you should do it. You'll know who's committed. You'll have some idea of who's actually going to do things that you don't have to worry about.
You and I don't live in the world of "real" filmmaking (well maybe you do. I don't). We live in the "indie" world. The no budget world. The rules are not the same. At least I've not found them to be. In this world of uncertainties, the one thing you need to do, is meet with people. Meet with actors. Meet with your DP. Meet with your sound guy. Meet with everybody you can, as many times as you can, prior to shooting.
Edit: I didn't storyboard my last film, but it went just like I wanted it to. Because I took my DP and my actors to the sets. They saw the location. We discussed scenes on the location and where the cameras were going to be, where the lights were going to be, where the actors were going to be. They had a better picture of what I wanted because of location meets. Much better than storyboarding would have achieved.
Last edited:
So you're basically saying that you (the director) should never offer anyone input, because they probably didn't read the script? And by "HODs," I mean "heads of departments" (for example, the propmaster is the head of the props department, the visual effects supervisor is the head of the visual effects department)
I get what you're saying, I just wonder why if you already have the specifics of how shots are mapped out in the storyboards, you have to meet with the DP, or if you have costumes drawn, then why do you have to meet with the costume designer. Also, when you were talking about location scouting with your DP and actors, couldn't storyboards be used so the location manager could have a visual of what his locations should look like?
The Matrix is perhaps a unique case where it was meticulously storyboarded, down to character likenesses and costume detail. And because they wanted to emulate a particular style of shot design, the Wachowskis had to have storyboards in order to make their shots turn out exactly like they were in their heads.
Other films will approach storyboarding in a similar fashion. Yes the locations may change on an Indie production, and some locations will be dropped simply due to weather. But that's part of the reason why you shouldn't get too exact with the location design in your storyboards.
Storyboards aren't just for figuring out blocking within a specific space, they are also for figuring out the emotional and psychological purpose of each shot in a sequence and scene. And many times, if you don't try to storyboard and work out shot design before hand, then the visual style and design of your film might not project and express what you want it to convey. You have far less of a chance to think creatively about your shots, and you might not easily consider different alternatives unless you're just really good at making things up on set. I do think every director should be able to make on-the-spot changes to shots while on set if a situation calls for it. But trying to create an entire film on the fly is not only risky and perhaps reckless if you are working with a decent amount of money and people's time, but it can also vastly reduce the potential quality of the overall film because there is no tangible structure that everyone can look at for how the film is supposed to look.
Now in some cases, you might not be able to storyboard at all due to a lack of artists at your disposal, lack of artistry yourself, or simply a lack of time, like in my case. I've always wanted to fully storyboard a project, but my deadlines have always been based on school assignment due dates, and so I've never had the freedom to meticulously storyboard something, and perhaps even construct an animatic. But the next time I start creating a film, that's exactly what I intend to do.
However, the last time I did try to storyboard, I realized I wouldn't have the time to draw it all, so instead I wrote out all of the shot details on a large shot-list document, with field boxes for every aspect and descriptive element of the shot. Where the camera was, where it was looking, the general length of the lens, the center of focus, the camera's movement, the character's blocking, and anything else, in order to properly design what shot will lead into what, and what sort of progression I wanted each scene to have.
It's called a Verbal Storyboard, and I would encourage anyone who doesn't do one already to consider making one if you aren't much of an artist, because it can really be extremely beneficial to the way you construct your projects.
Last edited:
You shouldn't take my word for it. You should just make a film and find out for yourself what the situation at the indie level is. A good test would be just to hold an audition for your film. Let me know what percentage of the actors show up at the audition with the two page side memorized, what percentage read it on the bus on their way over to the audition, and what percentage reads it for the first time in front of you.
And this is not an indictment of actors at the indie level. If they were getting paid, or if they were auditioning for Paramount Pictures, I'm sure they'd have every line memorized. But they're auditioning for some weird guy with a flimsy youtube channel with a funny name (I'm talking about myself) who also mentioned "There is no pay for this role" in the ad. So most of them don't take it seriously. I dont' blame the actors. I just expect the behavior and plan accordingly. As a result I plan for auditions for two or three full days.
I know what you mean by HOD. I was trying to say that when you say HOD, it sounds official, implying that this person is actually in charge of let's say props. If you're not going to pay your HOD, but you're going to expect him/her to dedicate him/herself to your movie, and behave like an HOD, and know every aspect of his/her job for your film, well, you're going to be in for a surprise. Your HOD has bills to pay, and probably has another job, and he or she doesn't go to sleep thinking about your movie. So the propmaster is going to screw things up. And you should plan for the screw up. If you don't plan for it and think that you have an HOD and everything is going to be alright, because the book says so, you'll find out that the book was talking about a paid set with paid professionals, and not an indie set, with an unpaid volunteer crew.
I was just giving you my workflow. You should do whatever you find helps you effectively communicate your ideas. As a director, I think that's what you're doing, communicating what's in your head to actors, your DP, Sound Design person, whomever. If storyboarding works best for you, then fine. Meetings and questions and answer sessions work best for me.
Cheers
Last edited:
I have no argument with anything you said. I never said, you shouldn't storyboard. In fact, if it is within your means, not only should you storyboard, you should do it as meticulously as the Wachowskis in the Matrix. If you have the means, it would be a tragedy if you didn't do that.
I was just mentioning my particular situation, where I decided that instead of storyboarding and going over the shots with my DP, I'd rather just take him to the set and discuss the scenes. We didn't discuss every scene on set either. But every time we had a discussion or decided to change things, we both knew exactly what location we were talking about.
I have no beef with storyboarding, or anything else that the filmmaking books or experts suggest that we do. I think we should do as many and all of the suggestions if we can. But I'm suggesting that at the indie level, you may have to make decisions on what you want to do based on the resources available to you.
I had no "location manager." I was the location manager. I asked my friend and her husband to lend me her house for three days. I am the one who asked multiple bars and found one where the price was right. I'm the one who went all over Toronto looking for spots and studios and public spaces to shoot in, the right time of day or night to shoot in. I only bothered my DP after I had gotten permission from the city to shoot in the places I wanted to. The only "location manager" I could afford who'd do all this leg work, secure the locations, arrange permits, arrange verbal agreements with city officials to overlook my presence where the permit price was too high ($4000/night at one location. The official told the security people to ignore my crew after they came and asked us what we were doing there), that they wouldn't charge me because my budget was too low. You think somebody would do all of this for me with the time and effort I needed, for no pay, just because he or she is an HOD? Pay people, and you'll get your HOD. If you don't pay people, and they're not an intimate part of your team, you can call them whatever you like, you'll have to do everything yourself. That's my experience.
You seem to be under a number of misconceptions. A storyboard does not and cannot detail the "specifics of how shots are mapped out". Unless of course you plan on making the most boring film in the history of film, IE. A sequence of static scenes where no one or nothing ever moves. Storyboards are a useful tool but more like a kind of graphical note taking than a specific definition or reference. Very useful if you've got 60 or more scenes to design/envisage.
You seem to think there is one fixed way to do pre-production and that it's a serial process. While there are obviously certain things which have to happen before other things, the design of the film is generally an ongoing, evolutionary process. When then should the storyboards be made? If they are made from the director's preliminary vision, then they are going to have to be constantly remade/updated as the director's vision is modified by input from the various HODs, the location scout/s and various other logistical issues. The more detailed the storyboards are at the beginning of the process, the more likely they are to become outdated and of course, certain design elements of the film can't be depicted in a storyboard, unless you know how to draw sound design for example. Exactly what and how much is shown in the storyboards varies from director to director and even the same director may use more or less detailed storyboards from one film to the next, depending on the film. The example of The Matrix was given but then more and more detailed storyboards makes more sense in a mainly CGI based film. Generally, for the average drama, storyboards are used to sketch the overall feel or flavour of the scenes rather than attempt to detail precisely how every shot will appear in the finished film.
G
If you want to see how directing doesn't work, watch the cartoon version of the lord of the rings.
What a complete turd. I saw this last night and I was floored at how they managed to suck out the drama out of every scene. Everything was completely flat.
What a complete turd. I saw this last night and I was floored at how they managed to suck out the drama out of every scene. Everything was completely flat.