“That movie was terrible. Don’t go see it.”When people say a movie is “bad,” what do they mean? Was it boring? Was the plot too slow or nonexistent? Or, is the excuse simply, “I just didn’t like it?”
I’m sure if we’re passionate at all about film, we can recall a heated argument we had about the quality of a movie after leaving the theater.
Whatever your personal reasoning, it’s important to know the quality of a film, whether it becomes classic or forgettable, is about so much more than the plot or the presence of your favorite actors.
What about the shooting?
One of the most basic camera angles, still used in many films but overwhelming used in soap operas, is the over-the-shoulder shot. What makes soap operas so boring and forgettable is the camera angles remain the same; you shoot a close-up of actor one’s face talking by placing the camera over the shoulder of the person they’re talking to (actor two), so it’s like the audience is in the point-of-view of actor two. Then, you move behind the shoulder of actor one when it’s time for the second actor to respond. It makes for “drama.”
Next time you watch a film, consciously observe the camera angles and how they were achieved. Is the view swooping over tree tops or amidst high-rise buildings? Is it closely following a high-speed car chase or an underwater explosion? Filmmakers will often go to great lengths to get complicated shots, managing not to shake the camera; and they’re obviously moving or travelling on a crane or other device if they’re right in the action!
What about lighting, costumes and set equipment?
Mute the audio and observe the background, the color, the style and feel of the set. It should only contribute to the mood rather than distract you from the dialogue. Observe any shadow, fog or lighting effects; think about how the key light, fill light and backlight are working together. They often have to bounce off a reflective surface to create the right effect. If you’re having trouble ignoring the actors, that’s a thumbs-up to the filmmaker!
What about dialogue?
Is it natural, believable and true to the character, not the actor? Or is it forced or distracting you from the overall plot?
What about nonverbal behaviors?
What’s not said is just as important as what is; are other non-talking actors in the scene contributing to the overall feel and providing something for the main character to work against? They should always be in character.
And the most important of all: structure.
Believe it or not, just about every filmmaker actually sticks to a particular structure, or paradigm, every time they make a new movie. And there’s a very good reason for that: it sells. They don’t deviate because that’s what viewers want to see. We never get tired of it.
There’s always (or most of the time, unless you’re going out on a limb and don’t care about making money) three acts: act one is the setup, act two is the confrontation and act three is the resolution. In a two-hour film, acts one and three are about 30 minutes; act two is about 60.
So, check this out. About halfway through act one, there’s always an “inciting incident,” or basically the event that starts it all, that gets the plot going. Then there’s something called a plot point, which serves to push the plot forward or reverse its direction completely and lead into a new act, often throwing the audience off guard. This is what keeps us hooked; we don’t know what’s going to happen next.
There’s two plot points in most films; one occurs at the end of act one, marking the point when the hero takes on the conflict. The second one occurs at the end of act two, leading to act three’s conclusion. And last but not least, we have the climax, which the most heated, high-tension moment physically or emotionally in the last act that brings us to the final scene.
The story line is always very similar, with similar types of characters, similar action sequences.
For example, in the third act of a romantic film, there’s always the same falling action: there’s some type of relationship conflict. The couple separates, and in most cases, they always find a way back together at the conclusion.
So what exactly happens in each act? Here’s a breakdown:
Act I
The exposition, which introduces us to the main character
The “dramatic action,” or what it’s about
The “dramatic premise,” or the events surrounding the action
And, of course, the inciting incident.
Act II
The obstacles
The “first culmination” where the protagonist comes “close” to reaching the goal
The midpoint, where the protagonist seems furthest from the goal.
Act III
The climax
The denouement, an ending point of calm
Apply this structure to any of your favorite films and see if it matches up; I’m almost certain it will. Does every film have a happy ending or a complete resolution? Nope. However, the overwhelming majority still contain this paradigm.
To learn more about screen writing, read SYD Field’s “Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting.” It’s a truly in-depth analysis, complete with breakdowns of the three-act structure applied to some of the most classic films. Hey, you and your friends will still have a difference of opinion; but at least you can now have a more competent discussion about why you like a film and why you don’t.
Kristin Larmore graduated from Appalachian State University this past Spring, where she took several film classes, including a screenwriting course for fun. She’s considered writing screenplays, but realizes it’s not her passion. However, she has an extensive movie collection which she plans to further develop, loves watching films over and over again, new and old, and always visits Redbox for the latest new releases.
No comments:
Post a Comment