So, I've started researching material for a script that I maybe want to write for a movie that I maybe want to make, and I'm interested in some thoughts. The script consists of a 90-minute police interrogation, and for the most part only uses two characters, with a third appearing for perhaps 20 minutes.
There are a number of really brilliant films that take place in a single location, from Buried to 12 Angry Men. These films seem like an obvious fit for the micro-budget indie arena (for obvious reasons). However, in order for them to work, they generally have to be really, really well executed. To wit, I would not be willing to make the movie unless I really truly feel that the script is good enough, and unless I have actors who I think can hold up the material.
It seems like the achilles heel of these type of movies, for me, is whether or not they are "cinematic". After all, why should this script be a movie instead of a stage play or short story or radio program? There's not really any point in making it, I think, unless I can really find what makes the project "cinema". Buried, for instance, is exceptionally cinematic. It would not have felt as claustrophobic as a stage play.
This got me thinking about the innate differences between cinema and the stage (or any other medium). Movies have the advantage of a fixed perspective, and the ability to alter rhythm through editing. I will probably be thinking a lot about this rhythm, and how it can create tension. This can be thought of as a extra layer (or set of layers) through which story can be told. Also, film is, in some ways, a more intimate medium than theatre. The closeness of the camera means that performances can be more subtle and naturalistic.
Despite the importance of subtlety, it's not all that counts here. No matter how important the minutae is, it's ultimately true that two people sitting and... talking to each other in a room for 90 minutes is awfully boring and certainly isn't very cinematic. It will be important to have the characters move around the room a lot. For this, I intend to take a page from Kurosawa's blocking technique. Despite making very different types of movies his blocking was larger than life... almost operatic... in a way that could be applied to what I'm trying to do here.
So, I can try to create something cinematic by focusing on rhythm and tension in editing and by using the fixed perspective of movies to contrast subtlety in performance with large, operatic movements and blocking. However, I'm not going to do it until I can be sure that all of the other elements are excellent.
Sorry if some of these thoughts are scattered. I sort of want to write an essay on the subject. For now, though, I'd like to hear some people's thoughts on the subject. Is it worth trying? Is there really any reason to do this are a movie instead of a play?
Thanks.
There are a number of really brilliant films that take place in a single location, from Buried to 12 Angry Men. These films seem like an obvious fit for the micro-budget indie arena (for obvious reasons). However, in order for them to work, they generally have to be really, really well executed. To wit, I would not be willing to make the movie unless I really truly feel that the script is good enough, and unless I have actors who I think can hold up the material.
It seems like the achilles heel of these type of movies, for me, is whether or not they are "cinematic". After all, why should this script be a movie instead of a stage play or short story or radio program? There's not really any point in making it, I think, unless I can really find what makes the project "cinema". Buried, for instance, is exceptionally cinematic. It would not have felt as claustrophobic as a stage play.
This got me thinking about the innate differences between cinema and the stage (or any other medium). Movies have the advantage of a fixed perspective, and the ability to alter rhythm through editing. I will probably be thinking a lot about this rhythm, and how it can create tension. This can be thought of as a extra layer (or set of layers) through which story can be told. Also, film is, in some ways, a more intimate medium than theatre. The closeness of the camera means that performances can be more subtle and naturalistic.
Despite the importance of subtlety, it's not all that counts here. No matter how important the minutae is, it's ultimately true that two people sitting and... talking to each other in a room for 90 minutes is awfully boring and certainly isn't very cinematic. It will be important to have the characters move around the room a lot. For this, I intend to take a page from Kurosawa's blocking technique. Despite making very different types of movies his blocking was larger than life... almost operatic... in a way that could be applied to what I'm trying to do here.
So, I can try to create something cinematic by focusing on rhythm and tension in editing and by using the fixed perspective of movies to contrast subtlety in performance with large, operatic movements and blocking. However, I'm not going to do it until I can be sure that all of the other elements are excellent.
Sorry if some of these thoughts are scattered. I sort of want to write an essay on the subject. For now, though, I'd like to hear some people's thoughts on the subject. Is it worth trying? Is there really any reason to do this are a movie instead of a play?
Thanks.
