On Learning How To Direct

I've written a number of scripts that have been directed by others. Most of those directors were good, one was simply awful. That being said, I learned far more from watching the bad director work than from all of the others combined.

On Watching The Monitor

It's generally considered bad form for the director to watch the monitor during takes instead of watching the actors directly. Yet most directors I've seen working do it. What's more, it seems perfectly logical to do so. Isn't that the best way to see exactly what you're getting?

Spending time on a film set as a writer, I came to see why it's so important to watch the actors with your own eyes.

A professional film crew covers all bases. The camera department is watching the focus, framing and movement. The grip/electric is in charge of the lighting. Sound. Set dressing. Props. Hair and makeup. Continuity from setup to setup. Everyone has a job. And every single aspect of what goes on screen is accounted for. Except one thing. The actors.

The director is the only one responsible for watching the actors.

There will be enough eyes to watch the monitor and make sure the framing is correct, the glasses are filled to the same level as the last setup, the boom doesn't dip into the shot, etc. Why risk being distracted by these concerns when someone is already being paid to do that? Better to watch the actors directly and give them all your focus.

As a writer on set, I had the benefit of not having anything to do but observe. I could see the deflating look on an actor's face when the director yelled cut and immediately asked someone about a technical issue. The director was basically admitting that he's not giving the actors his full attention.

Another reason to watch the actors and not the monitor is that, often, you can see better. Unless you have a huge budget, the monitor will tend to be small and portable. I remember one time, I was standing near the monitor and then turned to look at the actor. The size of the head on the screen was smaller than the size of his head in real life seen from where I was standing. Getting up close to him, allowed me to watch his performance like it was meant to be seen. As if it was on a big screen in a movie theater.

So, if at all possible, watch the actors, not the monitor.

On Creating Characters

I create characters in my own image. And then I punish them for my sins.

On Endings

Storylines in dramatic screenplays are driven by a PROTAGONIST in pursuit of a GOAL. Every scene directly or indirectly relates to this pursuit and the CLIMAX of the storyline is where the audience learns, once and for all, the result of this pursuit. With that in mind, there are only four ways a movie can end:

1. The protagonist SUCCEEDS. (In "Erin Brockovich," Erin triumphs over PG&E.)
2. The protagonist FAILS. (In "Chinatown," Jake Gittes fails to protect Evelyn Mulwray.)
3. The protagonist FAILS or GIVES UP the goal to GAIN something better. (In "The Apartment," C.C. Baxter gives up his high-paying job, but gets his love, Ms Kubelik, in the process.)
4. The protagonist SUCCEEDS but LOSES something important. (In "Capote," Capote writes the non-fiction book of the century, but loses his humanity.)

I've found that when I'm outlining a new script I have an intuitive sense of which one of these endings I'm going to have, even when I'm not clear on the details of how and why. The first is a happy ending. The second is a downer. The third is a happy ending where a character is initially on the wrong path, but by the end, sees the light. The fourth shows the consequences if the character doesn't see the light. He gets what he was after, but loses something more important.

Knowing which one of these stories you're telling makes it easier to figure out the rest of your story structure. If you are using the Three-Act structure (with a MIDPOINT breaking up Act Two), then the end of your Act Two will be the opposite of the end of your story (CLIMAX):

So, if you have a happy ending, then the end of Act Two will be a low point, a "false defeat." If you have a sad ending, then the end of Act Two will be a high point, a "false hope." If you have an ending where your character fails or gives up his goal at the end for something better, then, at the end of Act Two, he'll be well on his way to acheiving his goal but also on his way to losing something more important. And so on.

The reason for this is because, just as a movie begins in one place and ends in another, each Act does the same (and so does each sequence and scene within each Act).

Taking this idea further, the MIDPOINT has the opposite feeling of the end of Act Two. For example, if you have a happy ending, the PROTAGONIST faces obstacles in Act Two, but he/she makes progress and by the MIDPOINT of the story things are looking good. But, then things start to turn and by the end of Act Two, he/she is at a low point, or a "false defeat."

Knowing the feeling you want to evoke at the end of your story makes it easier for you to work backwards and create the ebb and flow that's necessary for a satisfying moviegoing experience.

On Six Day Shoots

Every script I've written has been told from the point of view of one character, where the audience doesn't see or hear anything that the character doesn't see or hear. This creates a strong bond between the audience and the character but it, of course, requires that the lead actor be there for every scene.

Many independent films shoot six day weeks in order to save money by taking full advantage of weekly equipment rental rates. It's important to understand how draining this can be on your lead actor (not to mention the crew) when they are in every scene. It might be better for the movie to spend the extra money and shoot five day weeks.

On Exposition

When I'm listening to the actors play my scenes, the lines that always make me cringe are the ones that are only there to sneak in exposition. They are there to establish something I (at the time I wrote them) thought the audience needed to know. As a result, they feel forced and unnatural.

On Television Actors

Television actors are particularly suited to handling the rigors of independent filmmaking. As veteran TV actor Ron Canada once pointed out to me, you don't work long in television if you can't handle anything thrown at you and still get it in the first or second take. An actor that can do that is a godsend when you are low on film, low on sunlight, racing to finish up in a location before you're forced to leave, or simply have to get through eight pages in a day.