"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.

 

[directorik]

You’re all over the place, Aveek.

You don’t agree with the notion that you need to know the rules in
order to break them, but you try to absorb as many of the rules as
you can. If you don’t feel you need to know the rules, why absorb
them? If you don’t feel you need to know the rules in order to
break them, why absorb the rules? I’m confused.

Like you, I’ve never read a book on directing. Unlike you, I didn’t
learn by watching movies - I learned by making movies. I have
always learned better through a more organic method - making
movies and making mistakes. But that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t
important to know. I wish I had learned many of the rules (like the
180 degree rule - or “crossing the line”) before I made the mistake
half a dozen times.

Also, you seem to think rules are important. At least you do sometimes.
Sometimes you say that there are no rules.

If you do not want to follow rules and if you want to take issue with
anyone who points out the rules, that’s fine. I will never suggest you
should do things any other way than the way YOU want to do them.
But often, being more open to the rules and the grammar of directing
is a very good thing. Doesn't mean you must follow them, only that you
are aware of them and know why you aren't following them.

 

[trueindie]

You’re all over the place, Aveek.

You don’t agree with the notion that you need to know the rules in
order to break them, but you try to absorb as many of the rules as
you can. If you don’t feel you need to know the rules, why absorb
them? If you don’t feel you need to know the rules in order to
break them, why absorb the rules? I’m confused.

Like you, I’ve never read a book on directing. Unlike you, I didn’t
learn by watching movies - I learned by making movies. I have
always learned better through a more organic method - making
movies and making mistakes. But that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t
important to know. I wish I had learned many of the rules (like the
180 degree rule - or “crossing the line”) before I made the mistake
half a dozen times.

Also, you seem to think rules are important. At least you do sometimes.
Sometimes you say that there are no rules.

If you do not want to follow rules and if you want to take issue with
anyone who points out the rules, that’s fine. I will never suggest you
should do things any other way than the way YOU want to do them.
But often, being more open to the rules and the grammar of directing
is a very good thing. Doesn't mean you must follow them, only that you
are aware of them and know why you aren't following them.

haha. yeah, I am kind of all over the place. Now that I think about it, the most important thing to me is what is on the screen. Why does it matter how I get to it? So I guess I don't really care about rules.

Regarding the 180, nobody ever taught me. The first time I shot my movie, there was a mention in a book that I read, but I knew where my camera had to be and what direction it had to face, because I knew where my actors were going to be on screen.

Now, I did say that I try to absorb rules. What I mean by that is that I listen to other people. If I think something is a good idea, I absorb it. But if I don't think it's a good idea, just because somebody or some book says it's a rule, doesn't matter to me. If I don't think it will help me, then I don't care about the rule.

For instance, I am very particular about rehearsals. I rehearse and rehearse and rehearse. I heard one director say that once. She said she rehearsed so many times that her actors internalized the story. I thought it was a great idea. And I follow it. Is it a rule? I don't think so. I just heard Spielberg say that he hates rehearsals and does not allow actors to rehearse in front of him. So what is the better idea? Spielberg does not rehearse, because he wants a shot that looks natural. And I think he gets his shots. I rehearse, because I've noticed that indie actors never know their lines. So when I rehearse, and rehearse and rehearse, on the day of the shoot, they all know their lines and I find that I need less and less takes.

So what is the right way to do something? I don't think there is one. I think its whatever works for whomever, and for what budget?

So in terms of 180, why does it matter? It matters because if you don't follow it, then you will confuse the audience. But if I don't confuse the audience, then why does it matter whether I do it by crossing the line with the camera, or with establishing shots? Is the rule important, or is it more important that the audience, which knows nothing about this rule, is not confused? The 180 is definitely an important rule to know. But how I cross the line can be a rule, or it can be up to me.

So I like rules when they serve my purpose. I don't like them, if I don't think its of any use to me.

I'm not trying to say, look at me, I'm some great director who doesn't follow rules. I'm just saying that I don't see why I have to follow anything. If JD Salinger followed rules (and I'm not even trying to say that I am worth even his left pinky toe nail), there would be no Catcher in the Rye. What is a rule? If I can plan my production in such a way that whatever is storyboarded can be captured, then what does it matter what rule I followed to get there, or if I followed any at all. Maybe I'm doing things everybody else does. Maybe all the things I'm doing are rules and I just don't know it. But I'm quite happy at the moment not knowing them. I don't feel constrained. Maybe as I do more complicated things I'll learn by making those mistakes. But I'd love to make them, instead of never trying them, because somebody told me it was a rule.

And I also learned by doing, not just watching, but I consider watching good training for me. When I watch, I constantly think "where is the camera? what is the camera doing?" That's pretty informative to me. If I like the way a movie is shot, I'll watch it over and over again to get an understanding of the camera movement, position and distance from the subject. I don't see why I have to learn "only" by doing. I can learn any way that helps me. I don't HAVE to learn "only" by doing. I can learn by thinking about something also. I can learn, by talking to someone also, like I'm doing now. What does it matter how I learn, or how I do, as long as I learn, and as long as I do?

That's how I feel
Just as confused and all over the place as ever. It's just the way I like things. Whatever suits my purpose at any moment, whether it is following a rule or breaking a rule I don't know anything about, is just fine with me.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

If JD Salinger followed rules

He did follow rules. His books have chapters, paragraphs, punctuation, page numbers, and so on. These rules enable readers to follow his unique contents.

Had he tossed chapters and paragraphs and lined the pages with block text sans punctuation, nobody would read the book, even with the same text.

The same thing with filmmaking -- break enough rules, you lose your audience regardless of how great your contents is.

My rule is this: follow convention so your audience can enjoy your film -- not be wondering if the director is trying to be cool or just a bad filmmaker.

 

[trueindie]

He did follow rules. His books have chapters, paragraphs, punctuation, page numbers, and so on. These rules enable readers to follow his unique contents.

Had he tossed chapters and paragraphs and lined the pages with block text sans punctuation, nobody would read the book, even with the same text.

The same thing with filmmaking -- break enough rules, you lose your audience regardless of how great your contents is.

My rule is this: follow convention so your audience can enjoy your film -- not be wondering if the director is trying to be cool or just a bad filmmaker.

Maybe to you, having a chapter is following a rule. Some publishers want proper grammar. That can also be a rule. Why don't you write something with chapters and paragraphs and Holden Caulfield's grammar and see how much publishes like it. Then you can tell me about how Salinger was following rules.

Edit:
Also, I don't agree with this "break enough rules......." rule that you have. Why don't you give me an example of what you're talking about.

You talk in extreme terms, without providing examples of what you are talking about. Most of the time, I don't understand what your point is.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I like rules. I also break them, all the time. Good to know, and choose for yourself, when and if you want to follow them, or not at all.

 

[directorik]

Again, I am more confused by reading your posts than I was to
begin with. Rehearsing is a choice - not a rule - so I don’t
understand your example. Did someone tell you that there is a rule
against rehearsing? Did you think that because Spielberg does not
rehearse that is some rule?

And I do not understand your Salinger example. What rule did he
not follow? I’ve read “Cather in the Rye”, it’s an extraordinary book
that is very well written. He followed all the rules of grammar and
spelling and novel writing. Of course his main character did not use
proper grammar when he spoke - neither did Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn.
There isn't a rule that states each character in every novel must speak
proper english. Salinger followed rules of the writer. You lose me again
because I do not understand the example.

The 180 degree “rule” is someone explaining good technique. As you
point out, if a director does not follow it the viewer is confused. Just
because no one ever taught you this doesn’t mean it is not needed. You
figured it out without reading about it. I did to. It is a good and needed
“rule” So, again, I don't understand what you are saying.

Where we do agree is there is not right way of making your movie. But
that isn’t what I am asking about. I’m asking about the rules you say
are not needed. And we agree again that trying techniques is essential to
learning. But that doesn’t mean that rules are not needed.

 

[DeJager]

I like rules as well. Some rules are very important. Some aren't. I'll break the rules that I think are not necessary (in regards to filmmaking).

 

[trueindie]

I like rules. I also break them, all the time. Good to know, and choose for yourself, when and if you want to follow them, or not at all.

I aint stoppin ya. But the problem with rules is that you feel like you have to follow them. You don't feel like you have to break them. I find it suitable to me to decide whether I agree with a rule or not as I discover them. If I break a rule, then I don't see why it matters if I know it or not. I broke it already. What does it matter if I know it.

Of course, at the film school I went for the summer, they said, "Weeeeellll.... Aveek... if you want to break it properly, then you must know what it is you are breaking." I still don't understand why that is true.

Anyway, I don't know what it is that I'm doing. But I know for a fact that I don't like most of the rules they taught me that summer. So I try to stay away from knowing too many of them. And I think it's just another way of doing things, and I'm comfortable with it.

 

[trueindie]

Again, I am more confused by reading your posts than I was to
begin with. Rehearsing is a choice - not a rule - so I don’t
understand your example. Did someone tell you that there is a rule
against rehearsing? Did you think that because Spielberg does not
rehearse that is some rule?

And I do not understand your Salinger example. What rule did he
not follow? I’ve read “Cather in the Rye”, it’s an extraordinary book
that is very well written. He followed all the rules of grammar and
spelling and novel writing. Of course his main character did not use
proper grammar when he spoke - neither did Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn.
There isn't a rule that states each character in every novel must speak
proper english. Salinger followed rules of the writer. You lose me again
because I do not understand the example.

The 180 degree “rule” is someone explaining good technique. As you
point out, if a director does not follow it the viewer is confused. Just
because no one ever taught you this doesn’t mean it is not needed. You
figured it out without reading about it. I did to. It is a good and needed
“rule” So, again, I don't understand what you are saying.

Where we do agree is there is not right way of making your movie. But
that isn’t what I am asking about. I’m asking about the rules you say
are not needed. And we agree again that trying techniques is essential to
learning. But that doesn’t mean that rules are not needed.

I thought I explained things pretty well actually.

But let's try again. If it says in some book that one must always rehearse, then is it still a rule or a choice? We're playing word games here. If it says in a book that you shouldn't cross the 180, and some people still cross it, is it a rule or a choice? Everything is a choice.

Yes maybe I'm talking more about the right way or wrong way of making movies. And I'm saying there is no right way and there is no wrong way.

Also since I am not knowledgeable about these rules, that I'm quite happy I don't know anything about, can you mention some other rules to me that must be followed in order to make a movie? Then maybe I'll have a better understanding of the difference between a rule and a "way" of making movies.


ps. don't take my tone in any negative way. I'm trying to learn direktorik. I'm a passionate arguer in person. I'm very lively and animated, and hope I come across as such and not belligerent.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I aint stoppin ya. But the problem with rules is that you feel like you have to follow them. You don't feel like you have to break them. I find it suitable to me to decide whether I agree with a rule or not as I discover them. If I break a rule, then I don't see why it matters if I know it or not. I broke it already. What does it matter if I know it.

Of course, at the film school I went for the summer, they said, "Weeeeellll.... Aveek... if you want to break it properly, then you must know what it is you are breaking." I still don't understand why that is true.

Anyway, I don't know what it is that I'm doing. But I know for a fact that I don't like most of the rules they taught me that summer. So I try to stay away from knowing too many of them. And I think it's just another way of doing things, and I'm comfortable with it.

I hate to stereotype, but aren't most artists rule-breakers, anyway? When we say "rule", we don't really mean it in the same sense that it is used in the rest of the world.

I think it might help if, instead of thinking of a filmmaking "rule" as an actual rule, try thinking of it as sage advice passed down from a more experienced filmmaker.

Where would we be, if we didn't listen to our elders? All of humanity, and I do mean ALL OF IT, is built on the fact that we listen to those who have done things, before us, and they teach us what they've learned. We then take what they've taught us and implement it however we choose, and hopefully, we pass on what we've learned to the next generation.

Seriously, we'd still be using stone tools, if this weren't the case. Why should filmmaking be any different? The "rules" that you hear are merely the base guidelines that experienced filmmakers have found to be useful. And you can choose to use them, or not use them. But it's always good to at least listen to what the more experienced people have to say.

 

[trueindie]

Oh yes, I never answered the Salinger question.

Okay. maybe you're right. He wasn't breaking rules. So let's talk about Mark Twain then. Who taught Mark Twain that it was okay to write in Finn's dialect. What college course or book of rules taught that to Mark Twain.

Now you're going to tell me that Twain broke the rules because he knew them. But what if he had just documented a boy from the south who talked like that, which is essentially what he was doing, would it not be literature because the boy being documented did not know what the rules of proper English are?

Edit: Also if I remember correctly, both Huck Finn and Catcher were complete narrations by the Huck and Holden respectively. They were both talking in bad grammar. There was no proper grammar anywhere in those two books if I remember correctly.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

" if you want to break it properly, then you must know what it is you are breaking." I still don't understand why that is true."

Because it will have an effect on the audience. If you break the 180 degree rule it will jar the audience. If you did it because you wanted to jar the audience and it's a moment in the film when the audience SHOULD be jarred, then it works. If you do it randomly because you don't know any better or don't care the audience will first wonder what you are trying to do, then slowly decide that the movie sucks.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

" The "rules" that you hear are merely the base guidelines that experienced filmmakers have found to be useful. "

No, it's a common language developed between the filmmaker and the audience and if you suddenly start talking gibberish they won't have any idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Cracker Funk]

" The "rules" that you hear are merely the base guidelines that experienced filmmakers have found to be useful. "

No, it's a common language developed between the filmmaker and the audience and if you suddenly start talking gibberish they won't have any idea what you're trying to say.

That's a good analogy, actually.

 

[kinglis]

Aveek, your thoughts on following/breaking the rules reminded me of the experiment of a famous violinist, playing the violin incognito in the tube station. Usually people would pay a lot of money to hear and see him in the music hall, but only one woman of so many passengers, recognized his talent. So, if you're a well known, successful film director, you can break all the rules and they would appreciate this as a marvelous innovation. But if you are "nobody".... well...

Here's the video of the experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw

 

[trueindie]

" if you want to break it properly, then you must know what it is you are breaking." I still don't understand why that is true."

Because it will have an effect on the audience. If you break the 180 degree rule it will jar the audience. If you did it because you wanted to jar the audience and it's a moment in the film when the audience SHOULD be jarred, then it works. If you do it randomly because you don't know any better or don't care the audience will first wonder what you are trying to do, then slowly decide that the movie sucks.

As I've mentioned in another post, I did cross the 180, and I did not do it by moving the camera across the 180 as I'm supposed to (I knew the rule at the time), and the audience was not jarred. I was not jarred. Only filmmakers were jarred.

Most non-filmmakers seem to think its just fine. Most of them don't think my movie sucks. At least on youtube, there's 20 likes and 2 dislikes. that's a 90% favorable rate, which I think I can live with. Those 2 dislikes were probably from filmmakers who were jarred, because their knowledge of the rules exploded their heads, and who didn't like the language I used.

There's no point in my arguing this any more. I've had many such arguments with filmmakers, and to date, I've changed the opinion of only one.

I make films or want to make films for people like myself. If people like me are not jarred, then I don't really care who is, and what rule they think I've broken, and how much they think my movie therefore sucks.

I'd rather concentrate on how I tell a story and what story I tell. If my story is intelligible to me, it will be intelligible to other people, who don't know anything about these rules, and it won't suck for them. If it sucks for filmmakers, I couldn't be bothered.

I might sound a little defensive. But it's only because I'm tired and frustrated that I can't get through to the heads of filmmakers. But I'm quite content making the suckee movies I make right now. I like them better than many of these other rule following indie movies I watch. So as long as it makes me happy, I'll continue to make movies that suck because they don't follow rules, and because they confuse filmmakers.

 

[trueindie]

Aveek, your thoughts on following/breaking the rules reminded me of the experiment of a famous violinist, playing the violin incognito in the tube station. Usually people would pay a lot of money to hear and see him in the music hall, but only one woman of so many passengers, recognized his talent. So, if you're a well known, successful film director, you can break all the rules and they would appreciate this as a marvelous innovation. But if you are "nobody".... well...

Here's the video of the experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw

Exactly my point. Thank you for that Kinglis.

When you guys get the chance, watch the extra material from Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino's DP did not want to shoot the scenes the way Tarantino did. Tarantino said, "I want the camera here" and his DP said, "you don't do things that way." In the end Tarantino convinced his DP to do it his way and his DP ended up seeing Tarantino's point of view (that's how I remember those extra features)

Yes, yes,... I know.... I'm not Tarantino. In what book does it say that I have to be Tarantino? Mail it to me. I'll pay for it. Then I'll burn it.

Cheers
Aveek

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

the audience was not jarred. I was not jarred. Only filmmakers were jarred.

A 180 degree violation doesn't always result in a jar . . . sometimes its a small "huh" moment in the back of the viewer's mind that momentarily took them out of the picture -- something didn't look right but they can't quite put their finger on what it was. If there are enough of these moments it'll wreck a good story.

Of course we can agree to disagree.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

A 180 degree violation doesn't always result in a jar . . . sometimes its a small "huh" moment in the back of the viewer's mind that momentarily took them out of the picture -- something didn't look right but they can't quite put their finger on what it was. If there are enough of these moments it'll wreck a good story.

Of course we can agree to disagree.

Yep.

I could also write a novel and not give two shits about following the rules of English Grammer. Long, run on sentences, incorrect subject verb agreement, etc... My story might be SO good that people don't even care, some people might even think my hard to follow, have to stop and re-read that sentence so I can figure out what it's supposed to mean style is cool (See Kerouac). I mean hell, I like it, me and my friends know EXACTLY what i was trying to say! Of course it might also make people who wade through a few pages of it throw it across the room in frustration before they have even read enough to know what that "good story" is.