PART 1 : “Positions, Please!”
A few months ago, we were asked to be one of a number of production companies creating short films on marriage. Our assigned topic was marital roles, and certain parameters came with the request: the film needed to be in four linked parts that could fit between other teaching pieces; it needed to support the subject material surrounding it; it needed to use dancing in at least one part as a visual metaphor for marriage; and it needed to fit in a small budget. I find short films to be great opportunities for experimenting with different styles and methods, always hoping to do more with less. In this post, I’ve included the four parts of the film as well as brief comments on the experiments we did with narrative structure, camera style, directing method, and editing choices. It was a fun little project; I hope you enjoy taking a peek into it. [Click HD in the upper right corner to watch in HD; if it's loading too slowly, then turn HD off.]
The Narrative Structure | After musing on the project parameters, I came up with an idea I thought might be useful in any teaching setting. Instead of just employing a simple metaphor between two concepts, what if dancing and marriage could be built into a literary conceit that explored marriage roles in a more complex way? Even more so, would it be possible to take the issues that the conceit explored and simultaneously mirror them in the actions of the characters on screen? (I explain this concept in more detail in a previous post). The basic story looks at the strained relationship of one couple and contrasts it with the relationships of three other couples at different stages of relational development. At one level, the film is just a story; but from another perspective, it offers a more complex view of marriage and relationships. To force the second perspective, try this out: when you watch Part 1, just exchange the word ‘dancing’ with ‘marriage’ and see what happens; this also works with the different dancing situations. (Here is the complete script which may be easier to follow.) In practical terms, I think if you apply this kind of a conceit-based structure to teaching materials, it enables a concept to travel on parallel yet connected tracks. This inevitably gives a teacher more options for exploring a multi-faceted concept within a group setting, and it gives the class a more sophisticated and nuanced look at the topic itself.
Part 2 : Learning to Lead
The Camera Style | Dancing is a notoriously difficult action to film using static cameras, especially if you’re wanting to catch what the characters are saying while moving. The most efficient solution, a steadicam, was introduced in 1976 and mounts a camera to an arm with hinges and balanced counter weights. It’s normally used for small sections of a film, but when we weighed all our options, we decided to use it to film everything. First, we had only two days to shoot all four parts of the film, and a steadicam enables almost instantaneous camera setups from one position to another, greatly speeding up the filming process; second, the steadicam could easily follow our characters’ discussions as they turned across the floor, no matter how quickly or slowly they moved; third, it enabled me to link together dramatic motions from one group of characters to another in planned sequences (something I like to do); fourth, it provided the viewer with a sense of being just another participant in the class; and fifth, instead of shooting individual scenes, I choose to follow individual actors throughout an entire sequence, finishing one actor and repeating the entire sequence from beginning to end with the next. The result was that we shot about 3 times as much footage as we could have had we shot in the traditional way with a tripod and dolly. It was also extremely helpful that we hired one of the best steadicam operators in the country, John Perry, who regularly shoots American Idol and Dancing With the Stars. (We used John before in the opening and closing sequences of Prodigal Sons, as well. He is fantastic.)
Part 3 : Learning to Follow
The Directing Method | One of the great things about living in Nashville is that for a comparatively small town (as opposed to New York or LA), it boasts a strong group of theater actors, many of whom also work in film. We cast some veteran thespians in this piece which enabled us to do a number of unique things. First, theater actors are experienced at improvisation, so I set up the acting situation as if it was a real dance lesson, telling Pierre (Matthew Carlton) to push things along as if in an actual class no matter if it was in the script or not; this kept the action continuously moving so we could shoot through entire sequences from any direction focusing on any character, any gaps being filled with improvised lines and actions. Second, I gave the actors the freedom to do or say whatever they felt was right for their character at that moment, so everyone was always doing something interesting to watch. In most cases, this resulted in different things happening simultaneously in the foreground and background, something more closely approximating real life. Third, this freedom to continue through a sequence from start to finish unhampered (even if a mistake was made) gave the scenes a more natural feel; the actors said they loved the ability to stay in character over an extended period just like they did on stage, something normally impossible in film. In fact, some of my favorite moments were the result of improvisation, which can often happen if you give good actors the freedom to play around with their characters and lines.
Part 4 : Missteps Will Come
The Editing Choices | I have to admit that I have a penchant for long takes. In my opinion, if a long take is supported with good and interesting camera movement that follows multiple linked actions, it accomplishes something more interesting than the traditional editing style of shot/counter-shot. Although shooting the entire piece with steadicam gave us more options in terms of directing and acting, it ended up taking away options in terms of editing, primarily because of continuity between shots. Giving actors the choice to improvise that worked well in general made it more challenging to cut between actions (although not impossible). Personally, I find that longer takes with deeper focus and simultaneous action in foreground and background create a richer cinematic experience. Again, it is more like real life where things happen at the same time, with your subconscious picking up one thing although you’re looking at something else. In light of that, editing was more about finding the most interesting and compelling sequences that worked well with others, and then cutting only where necessary. All said, I think it made for a unique end product that, while certainly not perfect (and few experiments ever are), accomplished what we set out to do.
