How important are these film school rules of cinema?

[harmonica44]

I've been trying to build a team of collaborators so we can all work on our craft and get better. I've been able to get a few but I've noticed the ones who went to film school operate with bigger rules compared to those of us that did not.

Rules such as you are not allowed to let an actor upstage another actor. Like I was called on that in a master shot, where I allowed an actor to walk in front of another actor to grab something off the table, then walk back. She said I was not allowed to let an actor upstage another actor, unless there is a good emotional reason for it. Otherwise it could be considered poor directing.

Or how I was told that I cannot allow a flashback to go on for more than a certain amount of time, compared to the present day scene, the flashback was being had in. If I have the flashback be the same length as the present tense scene, than audiences will be confused as to what is the past and what is the present. I have pointed out movies that break these rules, but they say those movies are multi-million dollar examples, that are under contracted to be distributed from the get go, where as we are just starting off, and cannot afford to break the rules to set a good impression.

Sometimes on a microbudget though, where you can't have all the locations and access to shooting as you want, it's a necessity to break the rules, or at least that would make it a lot easier. What do you think, should we stick to conventions, cause it's safe?

 

[MileCreations]

I haven't been to film school but have worked with actors who did, and they (and vice verses) were always surprised at the way I handled things. I do think with a flashback it is important, especially in a short film that it occurs quickly, usually it has more impact.

As far as where an actor is walking, it is at least important to rehearse it to see how it will work (of course you should rehearse everything anyway).

Chances are though that these people got this information from someone more experienced and knowledgeable than yourself and the people you are working with so you need to at least listen to their opinion especially if you are trying to collaborate with them

 

[knightly]

Upstaging is primarily a stage thing... space is used differently in film than in stage. Sets are real rather than just an imagined space with some walls.

If you are the director, it's your decisions that drive the project forward. If you're not making those decision or if the crew you have don't respect the decisions you're making, it's time to start being more decisive on set and driving the bus. They can follow suit (allow room for suggestions, but ultimately, it's the director's decision) or not be asked to return.

 

[2001 Productions]

Calling these things "rules" is just missing the forest for the trees. There is only one rule: tell the story.

If, in trying to tell the story, you interrupt the audience's suspension of disbelief in some way - such as poor blocking or endless flashbacks - then you have broken the one rule. If you do it in such a way that it does not distract the audience, then you have not broken any rules.

Directing a movie is not like driving a car. There are no stop signs or speed limits. It's like painting a picture. First, learn how to paint, then make your own rules.

 

[Sweetie]

Rules such as you are not allowed to let an actor upstage another actor. Like I was called on that in a master shot, where I allowed an actor to walk in front of another actor to grab something off the table, then walk back. She said I was not allowed to let an actor upstage another actor, unless there is a good emotional reason for it. Otherwise it could be considered poor directing.

Having an actor walk in front of another can confuse the audience by incorrectly switching their focus or even worse, having them not know what you focus on. Sometimes the smallest simple things can break your audiences concentration and/or the flow/enjoyment of your story.

The truth of the matter, most audiences won't care if you do that. It may look wrong but if you're telling an engaging entertaining story with interesting characters that you've managed to get them to emotionally bond with, the audience will continue to ride along with you.

Some people use rules as a crux and blame the rules for making something poorly. You're better off learning the rules, why the rules are there to make your own determination of whether it's best to obey or break the rule.

Or how I was told that I cannot allow a flashback to go on for more than a certain amount of time, compared to the present day scene, the flashback was being had in. If I have the flashback be the same length as the present tense scene, than audiences will be confused as to what is the past and what is the present. I have pointed out movies that break these rules, but they say those movies are multi-million dollar examples, that are under contracted to be distributed from the get go, where as we are just starting off, and cannot afford to break the rules to set a good impression.

Flashbacks are really a little different. There's a tenant in writing, if a lot of your book is done in a flashback due to the flashback being more interesting, you've started your book in the wrong time and/or place. It's similar for movies. There is a time and a place for flashbacks. A lot of people use them to tell a story instead to aid the current story. Some people say that if you need to use a lot of long flashbacks, there's a huge gaping hole in your story that needs to be addressed. Flashbacks are supposed to be small snippets that help explain a situation to the audience in the most time efficient manner.

Of course there are wide, gaping exceptions to that rule. Take Pulp Fiction for example. The whole movie is a flashback (well technically, the beginning is just a flashforward snippet) but it works. It gives the audience an opening an interesting start to the movie and then takes the audience on the ride to that point (and beyond).

What are some examples of flashbacks that you used as examples that break the rule?

Sometimes on a microbudget though, where you can't have all the locations and access to shooting as you want, it's a necessity to break the rules, or at least that would make it a lot easier. What do you think, should we stick to conventions, cause it's safe?

Sometimes you just have to work with what you have. It's more important to finish something, than to half finish something properly.

As for sticking for conventions. Some should be observed, others can be broken to garner a reaction you want. You should learn the rules. Think of what result you're after and if this is the best way to achieve that result, regardless of whether it breaks a rule or not. If it is breaking a rule, you should think more whether it really is your best option. That's all. After a while it'll come naturally.

 

[harmonica44]

Having an actor walk in front of another can confuse the audience by incorrectly switching their focus or even worse, having them not know what you focus on. Sometimes the smallest simple things can break your audiences concentration and/or the flow/enjoyment of your story.

The truth of the matter, most audiences won't care if you do that. It may look wrong but if you're telling an engaging entertaining story with interesting characters that you've managed to get them to emotionally bond with, the audience will continue to ride along with you.

Some people use rules as a crux and blame the rules for making something poorly. You're better off learning the rules, why the rules are there to make your own determination of whether it's best to obey or break the rule.

Okay thanks. As far as focus goes though, I assumed that everyone in the master shot would be in focus. The point of a master is to show everything, or so I thought. If it were my master I would try to light a deep enough DOF so that if someone walks in front of someone or is a few feet in front of someone, we wouldn't have to change focus. Maybe the collaborator who told me that, assumed that not everyone would be in focus simultaneously.

As for flashbacks, I had a script that was written more like Batman Begins, and that one had long flashbacks throughout the first third. But I don't want to confuse the audience either of course as to what's real or what's not. This is a short though, and not a feature.

Since we are on the subject I have another question that I wonder is a breakable rule or what should be done. Since I am not often able to get as much time on locations, I have to choose if I want OTS shots, or MCUs. Can't have both sometimes. Usually I can pick based on the emotion of the scene, which I should have primarily, between characters in dialogue that is. But sometimes a dialogue scene doesn't matter if you have OTSs or MCUs between the characters, cause either will produce the same emotional effect for that scene. If I had to choose one of those shots for such a scene, where both produce the same effect, is their a better one to choose, and why?

 

[knightly]

tell the story. However that works out. Rules are fantastic for getting a seamless edit together and were made through trial and error trying to get that perfect hollywood flow to their stories that they were churning out 1/week at one point. The rules are shortcuts to getting the story to the screen in a way the audience will accept.

If your story demands that you break a rule or two to tell it... do so. It's your artistic vision... the rules are craft, the storytelling is the art bit (although there's craft to that as well). When I was in film school, there was a filmmaker who ignored the rules and made the most memorable films in that group of filmmakers there. There was another who made one exactly by the rules that was completely transportive just due to the emotional content of the story.

Know the rules and why they're there. The rules exist for a reason. If the moment in the story you're telling needs you to diminish the power of one of your characters in a scene... upstage them. If the layout of the location has the other character force them to turn around... no big deal. Especially if you're going to be cutting out of that shot. (This is the real big deal on stage is that the upstaged actor loses face time with the audience -- film is different in that the audience can move with the characters from cut to cut, if that dude on set doesn't understand that, they need to be reminded that this is film - not stage).

If a jump cut or a line break is important to the moment in the story, use it... yes it's wrong if you're trying not to jar the audience... but if you need to jar the audience - why wouldn't you use something that does specifically that? The rules and the reasons for them are really important to know.

 

[Sweetie]

Okay thanks. As far as focus goes though, I assumed that everyone in the master shot would be in focus. The point of a master is to show everything, or so I thought. If it were my master I would try to light a deep enough DOF so that if someone walks in front of someone or is a few feet in front of someone, we wouldn't have to change focus. Maybe the collaborator who told me that, assumed that not everyone would be in focus simultaneously.

My fault. I should have been clearer. I didn't mean focus as in what's in focus, I mean what the audience focuses on. Sometimes it's a matter of what the camera has in focus (if everything else is out of focus, then the audience has no choice but to focus on what you show them). I meant it differently. Lets say you have a scene where everything is in focus. You want the audience to pay attention to what's happening in the right side of the screen, but you have someone jumping around being funny on the left side of the screen. The audience can get confused and not know what to look at. That's what I meant by all that.

As for flashbacks, I had a script that was written more like Batman Begins, and that one had long flashbacks throughout the first third. But I don't want to confuse the audience either of course as to what's real or what's not. This is a short though, and not a feature.

If I understand right, what you're describing isn't really a flashback at all. It sounds like Act 1, with Act 2 starting date being sometime in the future. I don't see a problem with that. While I cannot think of a lot of examples of it, I have seen it relatively regularly.

I have another question that I wonder is a breakable rule or what should be done. Since I am not often able to get as much time on locations, I have to choose if I want OTS shots, or MCUs. Can't have both sometimes. Usually I can pick based on the emotion of the scene, which I should have primarily, between characters in dialogue that is. But sometimes a dialogue scene doesn't matter if you have OTSs or MCUs between the characters, cause either will produce the same emotional effect for that scene. If I had to choose one of those shots for such a scene, where both produce the same effect, is their a better one to choose, and why?

This isn't really the best place to ask that to be honest as the answer to this is rather complex and you're straining my memory more than I appreciate Keeping it basic, the closer in you go, the more you allow your audience to connect with your character(s). For example. If you wanted to get the biggest emotional impact of a scene where your character is vulnerable and crying, slowly dolly in until you're at a close up. Want to show that the good guy is now the bad guy, cut out to a wide shot, preferably one looking down on him. These are subtle things that help an audience understand what's going on. Want to make your hero look more heroic, dolly in and pan up so that you're looking up at your hero.

Typically what you do when you're short on time is:
1). Get the Master shot.
2). Get your medium shots.
3). Get your close ups.

When you run out of time, move on to the next set up. This helps multiple ways. You can make a movie from master shots, but you cannot make one from close ups. Actors love close ups, because as we learnt before, it helps the audience connect with them and some actors love to be the center of attention. Actors can always make a performance better, so they'll want to redo a scene over and over again. If you do it this way, they'll be better motivated to get it right the first time so they can move on to the mids and then the CU's.

As for your over the shoulder shots and your medium close ups, there's not a lot of difference. Most of those are done at eye level, and to be honest, there isn't a lot of difference between them. If you miss one, I don't think you're limiting your editors ability to cut it.

If you want to learn more about this, learn about blocking. I've been meaning to dig out a blocking tutorial I came across a little while ago so I can do a refresher on it. If you want to know what its called let me know. You could go and source it/buy it.

tell the story. However that works out. Rules are fantastic for getting a seamless edit together and were made through trial and error trying to get that perfect hollywood flow to their stories that they were churning out 1/week at one point. The rules are shortcuts to getting the story to the screen in a way the audience will accept.

This^^^. Very well said!

 

[knightly]

Your closeup shots can be mixed and matched as you like... Having an OTS shows a connection between the character, a clean reverse (no shoulder) shows the other character being disconnected. If you have a bit of dialog that drives the characters apart, feel free to switch from dirty reverses (OTS) to clean when that moment happens. Shoot it both ways and mix and match if you'd like. So long as the switch is made in a way (generally a J or L cut that asks for a reaction shot) that the audience will accept, no one will care.

Know the rules. Use the rules... break the rules to tell your story when you need to do so to illustrate the point.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. What about things like camera shake? Sometimes I feel I need to go shaky cam cause their is just not enough time to set up support gear on a microbudget where you don't have a lot of time on the location. Guerilla shooting, get in, get out. But the one guy who is all about the rules says, that if you shake the camera, it might look unprofessional, and your movie might be turned down for distribution or film festivals because of it. I know one film festival that hates shake, said the manager, and every movie they showed, didn't have any.

The guy said movies like The Hunger Games can get away with shake, because the movies are under contracted to be released, no matter what. So they can screw up a little and be okay with it. Movies like ours, can't afford those risky short cuts, since we don't have a contracted release date.

 

[2001 Productions]

There's a difference between hand-holding the camera and "shaky-cam".

Hand-held camera can be both a practical consideration and an aesthetic choice. A good operator can hand-hold a camera without drawing the audience's attention to the fact.

"Shaky-cam", however, is a strictly stylistic choice, and one that I, personally, do not appreciate. It intentionally distracts the audience and takes them out of the illusion, therefore breaking the prime directive of cinema, in my opinion.

I recall Roger Ebert's advice to Paul Greengrass: Buy a f**king tripod!

 

[jax_rox]

All cinematic decisions should be driven by the story. Holding the camera with your unsteady hands might mean you get out of a location 15 minutes earlier, but in the end you'll be disappointed with how shoddy the camera work looks, let alone the fact that it potentially doesn't fit your story either.

Handheld certainly has a place as a cinematic tool, but it shouldn't be used as a cop-out. In my experience, handheld shots often take longer than simply putting it on sticks.

 

[harmonica44]

That's true, I want to come up with some sort of middle ground for my projects, where I have enough time on set, but do not break away too much from what fits the story either.

Here's an interesting one. My friend is shooting a fight and chase scene for her movie, I am helping with. She wants to move the camera quite fast in some shots, that it's causing rolling shutter. But she says she doesnt' care and rolling shutter will add to the effect of chaos, like barrel distortion.