"Rules" (lack of a better term) in Directing

[trueindie]

Didn't want to hijack Sonnyboo's thread so thought I'd start a new one.

Well Rik, that was, as Sonnyboo said, an 'eloquent and succinct' explanation of the notion of rules. But, ...
here's how I feel about this. I've always been pretty good at English, even when growing up in Bangladesh, with English as my second language, because I just read a lot of books in English. I read a whole lot. So I was fluent in English by an early age, because I knew how things were said. But I always scored poorly in Grammar class. People who couldn't speak English scored higher than I did. I still couldn't tell you what a past participle is. I didn't know the rule. But I knew how to make it work when I spoke.

The way I approach filmmaking is something similar. I see something in my head. Something I can relate to because I might have seen it in another movie. I can see what I see clearly. Everything in the frame I can visualize. Then I try to figure out, where the camera needs to be at what time, for me to get to something close to what I have in my head. That's all the technique I follow.

I've never read a book on directing. I've just watched movies. Nowadays I try to absorb as many rules as I can. But mostly, I'll work on somebody else's set and determine what I won't do on my set, try to see what they're doing inefficiently, etc.

I don't know. To me the process is a little more organic and internalized. But mostly, I like what I shoot and I'm happy with it. I can feel myself learning. I think everybody has a different approach and this approach works for me (Edit: or so I think).

An interesting point of view, Aveek.

But you say you sometimes agree with "rules" so there are some
good rules. Right?

One way to figure out how to tell a story visually is to understand
the grammar of visual storytelling. We all understand the grammar
of the written word and when writing for others we follow those
"rules". When we don't, we confuse people who are reading our work.
When we ignore the rule of spelling words correctly we are less effective
writers.

Visual storytelling is no different.

What if the word is changed? What if the word is changed to
"guidelines"? Would you say, "I don't agree with the notion that I
need to know a guideline to break it."?

I respect that you don't agree with the notion. We all have different
points of view. I happen to think knowing the rules (or another word
that makes you comfortable) is essential to learning to communicate
with others. The fact that you can point out time when the rules can
be broken proves that to me. As directors we should understand the
rules. Many times a beginning director crosses the line and doesn't
quite understand why the shot doesn't work. They know it doesn't but
they don't know why. Learning the "rule" helps a director figure out
how to tell a story visually. A director who then chooses to break the
"rule" is making a creative decision and not making a mistake. Do you
disagree with that notion?

Sorry for derailing your thread, Sonnyboo.

 

[2001 Productions]

I too am a bit confused as to what is potentially gained by breaking the 180-degree rule. No audience member will consider a director to be a "maverick" because s/he made the characters' placement in the scene intentionally confusing.

I've knowingly broken that rule many times, but only as a last resort and only because there was no other way to properly cover the scene. I see it all the time in the biggest Hollywood features, too, but I don't think anyone did it intentionally to flaunt their style.

 

[trueindie]

I too am a bit confused as to what is potentially gained by breaking the 180-degree rule. No audience member will consider a director to be a "maverick" because s/he made the characters' placement in the scene intentionally confusing.

I've knowingly broken that rule many times, but only as a last resort and only because there was no other way to properly cover the scene. I see it all the time in the biggest Hollywood features, too, but I don't think anyone did it intentionally to flaunt their style.

Nothing to be gained by breaking it. I did it for the same reasons. Because I needed that shot, to establish the scene.

But everybody is telling me that I shouldn't have done it. I can't argue with everybody, but if I followed the rules, I wouldn't have had that shot I needed at my budget. I would have had to bring in a dolly. Or I would have needed a different setting, etc. etc.

Breaking the rules isn't the issue. Following the rules shouldn't be the issue either. Telling the story in a way the audience understands, whether you follow rules or not, should be the issue.

 

[2001 Productions]

Telling the story in a way the audience understands, whether you follow rules or not, should be the issue.

Now, that I can get behind.

 

[trueindie]

Now, that I can get behind.

That's my point the whole time.

@Kinglis
You wanted to see something I had shot. I've posted this here before. This my favorite film I've shot. The purpose for this film was threefold

1. To make the final film for the summer program I was attending. (When I submitted the project, the scriptwriting instructor said that I shouldn't make the film and make something else. His criticism was that it wasn't a good script and the story was too "dated." I thought I'd make it anyway. I never liked any of his instructions in class to begin with)
2. To find out if I could intensify violence without showing it
3. To see if I could shoot something with the camera moving at 360 degrees. (The school had 180 degrees of track. I rented the other 180 degrees so that I wouldn't have to change setup and shoot everything in one day.)

It is a masterpiece by no means and the audio is not that great, but it was a shoot where I learned quite a lot.

http://www.falsestudios.com/clips/flow/bl.html
You can also take a look at the set we worked on here (mostly pictures of cast and crew, but a couple of interesting shots of the set)
http://www.falsestudios.com/clips/flow/castcrew.html

Best,
aveek

 

[JoshL]

I too am a bit confused as to what is potentially gained by breaking the 180-degree rule. No audience member will consider a director to be a "maverick" because s/he made the characters' placement in the scene intentionally confusing.

Well, just a thought, if you were doing a story that was set in two worlds, one more alien or less real than the other, but wanted to leave it a little more ambiguous as to which was which, violating the rule might let one world seem more "wrong" than the other. That would only work as a creative decision if the other world was done strictly adhering to the rule. The audience might not notice a rule being broken, but will notice a difference if there is direct contrast.

But that sort of creative decision requires an understanding of the rule...how it works, why it works and how to use it. A jazz musician doing a chromatic run and modal modulations (reference Miles Davis) evokes specific feeling because he knows when, where and how to break the rules. A beginning musician doing the same thing sounds like he can't play in tune.

Maybe "rule" isn't the best term. Maybe "fundamental" would be better. It's the stuff everything else is built upon. You can break them down, but you have to compensate with stronger fundamentals in other areas. Perhaps architecture would be a better metaphor than music (and that same metaphor applies to music as well).

Me, I'm all about knowledge. I want to learn and understand everything that I can!

 

[CamVader]

I too am a bit confused as to what is potentially gained by breaking the 180-degree rule. No audience member will consider a director to be a "maverick" because s/he made the characters' placement in the scene intentionally confusing.

I've knowingly broken that rule many times, but only as a last resort and only because there was no other way to properly cover the scene. I see it all the time in the biggest Hollywood features, too, but I don't think anyone did it intentionally to flaunt their style.

From what I've read about it, it's supposed to be done with a specific purpose in mind. Usually, as a way to manipulate the audience's perception/emotion - to tip them off to something that isn't right, to disorient them, etc. By breaking traditional rules with intent, you can give an audience a subliminal sixth sense, signaling them that something unusual is happening or about to happen. In theory, you have to be a master of the rules to break the rules successfully to invoke the audience response desired. Done correctly, the audience never notices.

It's enhancement to a scene, like adding soft piano phrases to a sad scene. People can hold it together until they hear the first couple of piano notes and then the eyes start to water. Adding soft piano to a car chase scene by accident won't have the same result.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

We're not talking about once because it was the only way to get the shot (though with better pre-production you could have probably figured out a way not to have to do that). We're not talking about doing for a motivated purpose (I have a repeated intentional line cross in my last film). I'm arguing against "rules, we don't need no stinking rules" which a recipe for disaster.

 

[CamVader]

We're not talking about once because it was the only way to get the shot (though with better pre-production you could have probably figured out a way not to have to do that). We're not talking about doing for a motivated purpose (I have a repeated intentional line cross in my last film). I'm arguing against "rules, we don't need no stinking rules" which a recipe for disaster.

Agreed. You have to have mastered the rules before you break them, or risk looking like a cinematic illiterate.

 

[sonnyboo]

Telling the story in a way the audience understands, whether you follow rules or not, should be the issue.

But that's the point isn't it? If you "break the rule", and as Rik eloquently tried to state - they aren't "rules" so much as proven techniques for effective storytelling.

I did not invent the name '180 degree RULE'. I think it is just something that is done often because it DOES help the audience understand spatial relations.

It is not an absolute or definitive law that must not be broken. It's simply something that has been proven to be affective. If you choose not to use any of the 'rules', it is a choice, not a law breaking. When the audience understands the where characters are in a scene, then you have done your job in the shooting, blocking, and editing.

 

[2001 Productions]

This thread is interesting in that one rarely sees so much debate among folks who all seem to agree with each other.

We're not talking about once because it was the only way to get the shot (though with better pre-production you could have probably figured out a way not to have to do that).

Gonzo, I don't think you meant that to be a personal affront so I won't take it that way.

That said, I'll bet I can spot a 180-degree violation in almost any movie you'd care to name, regardless of budget. Most recently we went to the theater to see Killer Elite, in which I spotted at least half a dozen. I tend to (smugly) point them out to my wife, who usually nods politely while secretly wishing I'd shut the hell up.

Point is, they occasionally and inadvertently crop up, despite your best preparation. If you never make that mistake in your career, I doff my cap to you.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

This thread is interesting in that one rarely sees so much debate among folks who all seem to agree with each other.



Gonzo, I don't think you meant that to be a personal affront so I won't take it that way.

That said, I'll bet I can spot a 180-degree violation in almost any movie you'd care to name, regardless of budget. Most recently we went to the theater to see Killer Elite, in which I spotted at least half a dozen. I tend to (smugly) point them out to my wife, who usually nods politely while secretly wishing I'd shut the hell up.

Point is, they occasionally and inadvertently crop up, despite your best preparation. If you never make that mistake in your career, I doff my cap to you.

None intended, and you'll note "probably" in there.

Of course, line crosses, unplanned jump cuts, etc... are everywhere as are other "mistakes" (plenty in my own films). We always strive for perfection, even though we never reach it. The editing process for me is the time when I beat myself (and my crew) to a bloody pulp for every blemish no matter how minor that could have been avoided. I will erupt and potentially be pissed for days because I find a double shadow in a scene I didn't see until we were editing. I'll (to myself) call the script supervisor every name in the book, rant that the DP is incompetent and vow to never work him again. Then I'll calm down and try to figure out how to make sure it doesn't happen next time.

 

[2001 Productions]

I'll (to myself) call the script supervisor every name in the book, rant that the DP is incompetent and vow to never work him again.

Ha ha -- since on my set all those people are me, I quite literally have nobody to blame but myself.