Crafting Short Films

[steve hyde]

I have found three useful books on the subject of crafting films and I'd be glad to discuss them here. I'm sure I'm not the only one to find Robert Mckee's "Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting", Claudia Johnson's "Crafting Short Screenplays That Connect" or Richard Raskin's "The Art of The Short Fiction Film." These have been helpful books for me. I'm not going to review them here, but I will say a few things about the books

Johnson's book is flawed, but I love it anyway. The first nine chapters are really about preparing to write a screenplay. Most books on screen writing that I have seen are all about crafting the screenplay itself, which misses many of the important elements of the idea formation process. The first half of her book is focused on formulating ideas into screenplay ideas. The second half of the book is a compendium of her student's screenplays and they aren't very good. I enjoyed the first half so much that I still have to recommend the book.

Robert McKee is sort of the alternative to Syd Field. He basically makes the argument that Aristotle's Poetics are still the only game in town. He is a screenplay analyst and he writes like one, but he also writes clearly and concisely and his book "Story" is a solid reference book. He lays out the rules as if he thought he was Aristotle himself, but in the process he really does a good job of laying out the elements of story and the principles of story design. I recommend it as well.

Then there is Raskin's little book. It is a one of a kind. He puts forth "a conceptual model: Seven Parameters for Story Design in the Short Fiction Film." Then he presents a scene by scene narrative of nine short films that he likes starting with Roman Polanski's MFA thesis film "Two Men and a Wardrobe." For each film he also provides the original storyboards, shooting scripts and interview with the director. In the end I think he makes a strong case for his seven parameters.

I've encountered a lot of really lame books on filmmaking. The three above are some of the best ones I've found. If you are reading any of these titles or have a recommendation for other ones, please let me know. I'd love to see a lively discussion on story craft start here and I'd like to discuss these texts specifically. If you hate or like any of these books please chime in.

Cheers,

Steve

Edit: name correction

[Evan Kubota]

McKee is the one who hates voiceovers, right? I tend to take any of the books by screenplay "analysts" with a grain of salt. I have to agree with Tarkovsky that screenwriting and directing should ideally be the same job, and not something you can parcel out to someone else.

I like Rodriguez' "Rebel Without a Crew." Humorous, detailed, and informative. He makes a point of mentioning Kodak's student discount, which he didn't discover until he went to Sundance with El Mariachi...

I am interested in checking out some of the books you mentioned, though, since the amount of material on directing shorts is far less than for features. In America the short is kind of a forgotten form, since the only commercial viability would be either as part of a DVD collection or as part of a collection airing on IFC or the Sundance channel. In Europe they used to screen shorts before the feature...

Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe" is pretty good, but what really blew my mind were the very short ones on the second disc of Knife in the Water: "Toothy Smile," and "Murder" (not sure about the title of the second one). These are 40 seconds or a minute long but everything you need to know about narrative film is condensed into a brief form. Somewhere on that disc Polanski is quoted as saying he prefers the most rigorous definition of a short - no dialogue. This approach has worked better for me than simply attempting to provide an abridged three-act structure from a feature-length film. In my experience there simply isn't time in 9 or 10 minutes to build one complex, detailed character, much less three or four. Many student shorts that I have seen make the mistake of introducing 3-4 characters that are indistinguishable, since there is not enough time to clearly establish all of them. For that reason, I prefer to have two or three characters at most.

The other thing I've come back to is that the requirements for a short plot are far different than for a feature. It sounds obvious, but again, the temptation is to come up with some story that leans towards the epic end of the scale. With a short, you don't necessarily have to consider a 'surprise ending' or a large story arc. Small, simple stories can be extremely effective, and you can focus sharply on a story with very few events.

[steve hyde]

Hi Evan,

McKee is the one who hates voiceovers, right? I tend to take any of the books by screenplay "analysts" with a grain of salt. I have to agree with Tarkovsky that screenwriting and directing should ideally be the same job, and not something you can parcel out to someone else.

Thanks, you are the second person to recommend Andrei Tarkovsky's "Sculpting In Time". I will read it... I don't recall reading about Mckee's disdain for voice over; however, I do think the screenwriter's job is to find ways to tell a visual story without it. That said, some of my favorite films have voice over in them. I just watched "Y Tu Mama Tambien" a couple nights ago and thought the voice over really added to the story. I especially liked the way they cut the location sound to silence each time the narrator spoke. Nevertheless, I agree you have to take McKee "with a grain of salt". What makes reading Mckee worth while is his analytical style of writng. No book can be used like a recipe for writing a script. The books I suggested are less like recipe books and more like engineering plans. e.g. there are a number of ways to build a bridge, but before we commit to building it, we need to make sure the physicists agree that it is structurally sound. McKee is a script analyst. He looks for structural weaknesses. He doesn't make movies. His craft is teaching people how to write movies, for better or worse. "Story" is worth reading in my opinion. It's a solid reference book.
.

I like Rodriguez' "Rebel Without a Crew." Humorous, detailed, and informative. He makes a point of mentioning Kodak's student discount, which he didn't discover until he went to Sundance with El Mariachi...

I'll read it.

I am interested in checking out some of the books you mentioned, though, since the amount of material on directing shorts is far less than for features. In America the short is kind of a forgotten form, since the only commercial viability would be either as part of a DVD collection or as part of a collection airing on IFC or the Sundance channel. In Europe they used to screen shorts before the feature...

No doubt. The short is not a popular form, although making shorts is still probably the best way to learn the craft of filmmaking. Making shorts is a cash layout like film school. Learning a craft costs money and there are a number of ways to spend that money. There might not be a broad audience for shorts, but producers will watch them if one produces a buzz at a film festival or wins an award. The internet is a growing venue for shorts too. People are already downloading HD quality media onto their televisions at home. If artists take making shorts seriously, audiences will take watching shorts seriously if they have access to them. I'm not suggesting that shorts will be seen more than features, I'm just saying shorts will be seen more than they are now. Evan, as of this moment at least 226 people have watched your short "Taco". You posted it three days ago. It has been seen all over the world. This kind of, time-space, distribution would have been unheard of five years ago. This kind of distribution opportunity is only going to become easier for filmmakers and film audiences.....Who knows what we'll have two years from now??

Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe" is pretty good, but what really blew my mind were the very short ones on the second disc of Knife in the Water: "Toothy Smile," and "Murder" (not sure about the title of the second one). These are 40 seconds or a minute long but everything you need to know about narrative film is condensed into a brief form. Somewhere on that disc Polanski is quoted as saying he prefers the most rigorous definition of a short - no dialogue. This approach has worked better for me than simply attempting to provide an abridged three-act structure from a feature-length film. In my experience there simply isn't time in 9 or 10 minutes to build one complex, detailed character, much less three or four. Many student shorts that I have seen make the mistake of introducing 3-4 characters that are indistinguishable, since there is not enough time to clearly establish all of them. For that reason, I prefer to have two or three characters at most.

I have not seen the other Polanski shorts that you made reference to. I'll look for them. I strongly agree that making a short without dialogue is more "rigorous". If you eliminate dialogue from your script the writer/director is forced to speak a visual language. I currently have a short script with the working title SPEAK, which is void of dialogue. It is written as a shooting script. I will introduce dialogue or voice over if I feel the story needs it, but my strategy is to write it without dialogue to force myself to learn the visual language of film. My challenge will be to direct the actors to speak with their eyes, faces and body movements. It will be hard and I might fail miserably at it, but even if I fail, it will still be a good exercise in film making. SPEAK will present the development of two characters. I agree, a character driven short has to be focused on one or two or the story can easily become muddled.

The other thing I've come back to is that the requirements for a short plot are far different than for a feature. It sounds obvious, but again, the temptation is to come up with some story that leans towards the epic end of the scale. With a short, you don't necessarily have to consider a 'surprise ending' or a large story arc. Small, simple stories can be extremely effective, and you can focus sharply on a story with very few events.

Yes, good point. I'm reminded of the differences between poems and novels. Evan, Thanks for starting this coversation, let me know if you are willing to review my script.


Steve

[Evan Kubota]

I'd be glad to look at your script. I'm just wrapping up the writing process on my summer film, actually. Going out of the country for about a month, and shooting will start in July and run about 4 days spread over a 2 or 3 week period. It should be finished by the end of August when school starts again.

[npcoombs]

To be honest, when i started becoming interested in filmmaking I did not have much idea about the kind of films I wanted to produce or how to go about it.

Naturally I bought a couple of books on directing and screenwriting, and at the time they seemed helpful. Maybe fragments of wisdom have remained stuck with me but for the most part I look back at reading these books with mild embarresment.

Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time is not strictly speaking a 'Filmaking for beginners' kind of affair. The most interesting parts of the book are when he is contemplating art's role in society at large.

Nowadays I consider many mediums as instructive and inspirational for filmmaking and screenwriting (although I tend to side with auteuristic demands for the two to be one and the same). In find literature, art, poetry and music are influential.

Additionally, I believe that the hallmark of the great directors is a technical mastery met with a profound sense of storytelling and the moral/aesthetic purpose of art. this way there can be unity between form and meaning, which is particularly deep with regard to Tarkovsky.

[steve hyde]

What kinds of films? The question is a logical point of departure and perhaps an even more specific point of departure is considering the question, why make films in the first place? I'm now reading Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time", but I haven’t finished it. I have not seen all of his films, although I thought MIRROR was absolutely stunning. I would like to read Tarkovsky's script, but I suspect he didn't even write one for it. Tarkovsky defied every screenwriting principle in MIRROR and If I understand correctly the film was marginally successful in the theatres. Nevertheless, I think the film stands as one of the great works of cinema.

Perhaps Mirror failed in the theatres because it is not a film that resolves, which is something that irritates film audiences, but Mirror seems to me to be one of the most authentic records of memory that I have ever encountered. It is like taking a tour through someone else's dreams.

Another aspect of MIRROR that I find truly remarkable is the ways that Tarkovsky manages to develop the character of his protagonist played by Margarita Terekhova. The continuity of the film bends and turns illogically and mysteriously in the same ways that real life does, yet each scene somehow moves her character into an arc. A lot of the character development is subtly accomplished through visual language. I'm thinking of all of the moods that were captured in the dialogue scenes with the camera consistently focused on Margarita Terekhova. Instead of cutting back and forth from one talking head to another the camera stays on Terekova which allows us to *know* the protagonist more intimately. It's a remarkable method and I'm surprised we don't see it used more in contemporary cinema.

I believe that the hallmark of the great directors is a technical mastery met with a profound sense of storytelling and the moral/aesthetic purpose of art. this way there can be unity between form and meaning, which is particularly deep with regard to Tarkovsky.

You have touched on something that I have been thinking about a lot here and it ties directly to the question I posed at the top of this post: What kinds of films? Why make films? Storytelling mastery aside for the moment, there is a more important question at hand: what is a given story about? This, I believe, ties into what you have called "moral /aesthetic purpose of art" and "unity between form and meaning" I simply call this the artist's *purpose*.

I can sit through bad camera work and bad sound and even bad acting if the story connects with me. I just want some insights into the artists deeper reasoning for making a film. Is it ego or is the artist driven by an *idea* that is best conveyed in moving pictures. I want to connect with the artist's purpose. I want to discover what inspired the artist to make the film. If that discovery doesn't happen, the film goes on to my forgettable list. Here is a passage in Tarkovsky's book got me thinking about how difficult it is to choose a purpose, write a story that connects to that purpose and then make a film that presents the story in cinematic rhythm.

Clearly the hardest thing for the working artist is to create his own conception and follow it, unafraid of the strictures it imposes, however rigid these may be. It is far easier to be eclectic, to follow the routine patterns which abound in our professional arsenal: less trouble for the director and simpler for the audience. But there is a danger of becoming hopelessly entangled.

This makes sense to me. I'm only beginning my first attempts at making films, but I can already see how maintaining a clear, purposeful story idea and sticking with it until the end, is one of the greatest challenges for auteur filmmakers.

....I have yet to read the chapter on "the artist's responsibility". Is this the chapter where he discusses the artist's role in society? What was it in that chapter that resonates with you?

Steve

[npcoombs]

Firstly, I am surprised and encouraged to discover your appreciation of MIRROR. It is most definitely my favorite film, in my opinion Tarkovsky's greatest and more grandly I believe one of the greatest works of art of the 20th century.

Tarkovsky wrote a script for Mirror but this was mainly just to secure funding by VGIK, a lot of the film was carried across in journal and notebooks and some scenes devised at the last minute (such as the dual role of mother and girlfriend). In a sense Tarkovsky defied his own rigorous principles of structure and unity and created his best film. See how Turgid his filmmaking became when he doggedly followed his ascetic principles in THE SACRIFICE.

Anyway, to filmmaking; otherwise I could, of course, spend all night writing about Tarkovsky.

Instead of cutting back and forth from one talking head to another the camera stays on Terekova which allows us to *know* the protagonist more intimately. It's a remarkable method and I'm surprised we don't see it used more in contemporary cinema.

Have you yet to sample the delights of Bela Tarr's cinema?

You have touched on something that I have been thinking about a lot here and it ties directly to the question I posed at the top of this post: What kinds of films? Why make films? Storytelling mastery aside for the moment, there is a more important question at hand: what is a given story about? This, I believe, ties into what you have called "moral /aesthetic purpose of art" and "unity between form and meaning" I simply call this the artist's *purpose*.

I'm not sure they are the same thing. Any artist can have a purpose: this tells us nothing. For instance Mattias's purpose in his films seems to be glamorize or sensationalize teenage sexuality (but not in an overly exploitative way). I think what characterises Tarkovsky's work is a moral/critical/utopian unity.

Clearly the hardest thing for the working artist is to create his own conception and follow it, unafraid of the strictures it imposes, however rigid these may be. It is far easier to be eclectic, to follow the routine patterns which abound in our professional arsenal: less trouble for the director and simpler for the audience. But there is a danger of becoming hopelessly entangled.

This is exceptional advice, and advice I have yet to put into practice myself: maybe on my next film. But remember we now have more flexibility for experimentation than in Tarkovsky's day, when directors were expected to move straight into structured narrative pieces or sink immediately.

....I have yet to read the chapter on "the artist's responsibility". Is this the chapter where he discusses the artist's role in society? What was it in that chapter that resonates with you?

Steve

The final chapter is the most prophetic when he calls on art to save humanity.

I will write more tomorrow when I am more awake. A great topic to discuss.

[mattias]

For instance Mattias's purpose in his films seems to be glamorize or sensationalize teenage sexuality

hey, wait a minute, that's not it at all. sisten i är en skit is about friendship and jag bara undrar is about dealing with mortality. sexuality plays a big part in everything i do for sure, but please don't jump to conclusions. ;-)

/matt

[npcoombs]

jag bara undrar is about dealing with mortality. sexuality plays a big part in everything i do for sure, but please don't jump to conclusions. ;-)

/matt

Im not trying to start arguments. I haven't seen the film, only its trailer, and yet it is blatantly transparent that sexuality is the main theme, from the tag line of the film to the beautiful girls walking about in exposing tops and the seductive night lighting setup. The cinematography is rich and sensuous, not ominous and dramatic, the shallow depth of field, smooth skin tones and glamour lighting all contribute to its sexual atmosphere.

Of course I could find myself completely wrong on watching the film, but I doubt it.

[mattias]

I haven't seen the film, only its trailer, and yet it is blatantly transparent that sexuality is the main theme, from the tag line of the film to the beautiful girls walking about in exposing tops and the seductive night lighting setup. The cinematography is rich and sensuous, not ominous and dramatic, the shallow depth of field, smooth skin tones and glamour lighting all contribute to its sexual atmosphere.

you got it, but it's really just a storytelling device. one of the girls has cancer and i'm building up for the clash. so i guess you could say sex is a central theme but it's not what i'm trying to do with the film. my favorite movie genre is the erotic thriller, go figure. never about sex but always with sex. :-)

Of course I could find myself completely wrong on watching the film, but I doubt it.

nobody's ever wrong in these case, but i think you'd be a bit surprised. :-)

/matt