SoCal Film: Terry Rossio on Directing

Directing starts with (as they would say in my theater class) finding the beats of the scene. In any scene or dialogue exchange, there are certain key 'beats' or turning points, or points of emphasis, and the overall scene has a certain rhythm. Those beats should be supported, or enhanced, or played, to maximum power, maximum effect.

After finding and understanding the beats, the first big action to take is blocking the actors. This is not having the characters simply stand opposite, or side-by-side for the whole scene, or leaving it up to the actors to block themselves. You need to design the beginning pose (ideally something unique that supports the character or scene) and then the movements of the actors relative to each other, through to the ending relationship or pose -- again, designed to support the beats of the scene. Personally, I think blocking should be done (IMHO) emphasizing the 'silhouette' approach ... if you made your characters black and the setting white, and had no dialogue or sound, would you be able to tell simply from the silhouette what the scene was about?

There are a dozen other concerns, ranging from how realistic, or stylized the action and movements should be, to the comfort level of the actors themselves (blocking shouldn't be done in such a way that they're tripping over stuff, or have to move awkwardly, affecting the performance.) There are ways to move around corners, furniture, through doorways, etc; that's part of what theater class is all about.

After blocking, there are four huge areas to consider, all related: camera placement, composition, camera movement, and cuts. All need to be done relative to both the 'beats' and the 'blocking' with choices made to support the intent of the scene.

You don't want your camera placed only at medium distances, and getting medium shots, start to finish. You want to vary the placement, distance, height, and angles. There was a neat moment in Animal House, where one of the characters falls into another's arms -- and the camera suddenly jumps back to a very, very distance wide shot on the movement, to let us see the entire setting, before coming back in tight. Because the cut is on movement, you don't even notice it, but it adds to the scene. You can always try a Sergio Leone style close-up. Or a silhouette shot. Or an over the shoulder from behind the characters (a favorite from Law & Order.)

Then there is the level of compression -- which is all about lens choice. Do you isolate the actors from their background with a longer lens and less depth of field, or do you widen the lens and get background detail in the shot, making the character more a part of the environment? Which supports the scene better? Slightly wide angle gives a comic or surrealistic feel. Narrow depth of field is more mannered and stylized, etc.

Sometimes, even in a simple conversation scene, you can pull focus from one character to another at a key point in the scene (Gore did this on Pirates in the Barbossa/Kiera dinner scene). Or the camera can pan, or a pan can start and then cut and then continue pan and stop. You can always experiment with any of these techniques but a good director not only experiments, he has control over the all this stuff.

Next, there's composition -- and as you know, I ranted about this for a long time. As a photographer, I come to filmmaking through photo composition ... the rule of thirds, directing the eye in the scene, prominence, counter movement within the scene, balance or imbalance, repetition of form, creating the illusion of depth through foreground objects and background objects, formalism, the difference between line, weight, and shape, etc, you get the idea. It can be very comforting to an audience for a scene to be both realistic yet obviously composed -- think Kubrick or Coppola.

Then there is camera angle ... shooting slightly up or slightly down, or overhead, and then I could go on and on (as could you, I know you've studied film) about camera movement, and then camera movement relative to the blocking, etc. Slightly creeping in for emphasis, or cutting in from the same angle, etc. A lot of camera movement has to do with point of view.

Another choice is pace of cutting ... an extended shot (linking the characters on film together) or designing the scene for cutting (a way of subtly separating the characters). All these choices are made to support the scene -- is it languid, creepy, confrontational, comforting? Or does the emotional intent change in the course of the scene?

After all the brouhaha over camera placement, there's lighting, and how that affects a scene. You can use lighting to tell the story of the scene, to move the eye, to create tension or emotion. Then there's art direction, set direction, controlling costumes to emphasize theme or character, etc.

After all that, there's directing the actors, getting performance. Most of that is accomplished by casting, but still, characters can either feel like they're reading lines, or actually living in their skin. Ideally, when you get to editing, you're tracking even the subtlest of expressions on your actors, and using that as part of the rhythm of a scene (this is something Gore described to me; humans look for reactions more so than expressions, because we can't see ourselves, and proper conversation has a rhythm of expression/reaction that can help make a scene realistic.)

My main point is just to be attuned to these choices and aware of the effect you're creating, rather than make non-choices or leave it to chance. It's the director's job to look at a scene and support the story with all those possible techniques. They shouldn't be over-used, ideally used they're not obvious; people just think the scene is well-directed.

Terry Rossio
Writer/Director/Producer
Wordplay: Screenwriting Secrets from Working Screenwriters