So you want the scoop? The following is a basic explanation of the processes behind making a film.
Step 1: Writing the Script
Overcome with inspiration you set finger to keyboard and type madly for days. The result? A script. But before it will be taken seriously in Hollywood, you’ve got to make sure that you meet the minimum requirements. The following are the basic guidelines for making a script look professional.
The very first page of your script should be the cover page. The title is typed in underlined upper-case twenty-two spaces from the top (and that’s the top of the page, not the top of the upper margin). At twenty-six lines appear the words An Original Screenplay followed two lines later by the words By [Name]. In the lower right-hand corner of the page should appear your name and address (unless you have an agent in which case their name and address appears instead, preceded by the note Literary Representation: ), singled spaced in upper- and lower-case. In the lower left hand corner of the draft number (first, second, ect.) should be noted in all in all capital letters and underlined. On the line below this should be the date upon which that draft was completed.
On the first page of the screen play itself should be the title in underlined bold type seven spaces from the top. Five spaces below that should be the words "FADE IN:" and two lines below that should be your first scene.
All dialogue, description, and narrative is single-spaced and written in upper- and lower-case letters.
Double space between two pieces of dialogue, narrative, description, or any combination of the previously mentioned elements.
When used in with dialogue character names are typed in capital letters at 40 picas.
Example:
Columbus
Aw geez! Ya’ know I thought it didn’t look like India!
Dialogue directions and inflection cues appear in parenthesized italics at 35 picas.
Example:
Cameron
(exuberantly)
I’m king of the world!
Dialogue itself ranges in size from 30 to 60 picas and does not have a justified right margin.
Example:
Butcher
(gleefully)
This little piggy went to market!
This little piggy stayed home!
This little piggy had roast beef!
(you get the point)
The page number appears at 75 picas four spaces from the top of the page in the right hand corner.
Each subsequent page begins with the page number in the same place and three lines below that the first continued scene number.
And finally the easiest way by which to get all these somewhat involved details straight. Buy a copy of screenwriting software to do it for you. There are numerous programs that can be bought for under $100 and do the measuring so you can work on your story.
As to story-writing itself, practice is the greatest tool, yet instruction and a great deal of inspiration never hurt anybody either. Unfortunately we can’t offer you either of those things.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Step 2: Selling the Script
To begin with, a few figures. Each year Hollywood is inundated with approximately 100,000 unproduced scripts. The chances of a first time writer being produced is approximately 140,000 to 1 (hey its better than the lottery!) Studios receive and review around 5,000 scripts a year, and of these a whopping 12 are sent on to become real live spectacles for the eyes and ears. Now to become one of those twelve there are a few paths. The first, and best chance for success (which in no means that its a good chance) is to get an agent. The Writers Guild Signatory Agent List provides a comprehensive listing of all agents who represent writers. So you start sending out inquiries and send you script on to positive replies. An agent is extremely valuable for two reasons. First, hey are known (or least better known that you most likely will be) and thus can get access to places you perhaps cannot, and second, they are familiar with the business and can help guide you through what could be an exremely difficult ordeal.
But maybe you don’t want an agent. Well you can sell it yourself, but just to make sure you don’t sell yourself short, the following is a list of the things you might want to know before going to battle for script.
Know what kind script you have in terms of budget, big- versus low-. Low-budget, despite a somewhat negative ring is not of inferior quality. According to the Writers Guild, low budget is around a million or less, though to many a low budget is perhaps closer to five or six million or less. Anything that requires many exotic locations, a great deal of special effects or major start is bumped into big budget. So basically know what kind of companies have the budget and inclination to produce your kind of script and don’t waste your time with the others.
Make sure you send it to a name, not a title. Your script gains a little more weight if you can manage to send it to a person. Now this does not necessarily mean you send your script to Joe Schmotz who you happen to know works at Universal. Try and find out the name of the story editor or creative executive. Then simply put their name on the query letter and script. At the very least it makes it look like you know what you’re doing.
Once you have the name, send a query letter stating that you have written a script you believe is consistent with the productions companies work, promises to be extremely profitable (money is always important), and that you would like to send it in for review. Send the letters off and respond with scripts to the positive replies.
To make things easy for yourself, register your script. Who knows, maybe it’ll become worth enough to be stolen. Its relatively easy to do this. Simply send a copy of the script and the fee to the WGAw office at:
WGAw
7000 West Third St
Los Angeles, CA 90048-4329
(213) 782-4520
Or call (213) 782-4540 to get information about script registration. The fee is minimal for non-members and it will safeguard your script from plagiarism. Just as a note though, don’t put your WGAw registration number on you scripts when you send it to producers, it just looks like you don’t trust them, and that’s not the way to off.
So assuming that your script passes the reader, is handed off to the story editor, is then handed off to a producer, who in turn gets the okay to go ahead from the president and you script is picked up. What then? The studio may decide to option it, meaning they pay between $5,000 and $10,000 for the chance to mull over it for a year or two and decide whether they want to take it, while you promise not to try to sell it anywhere else. Then they may decide to pick it up. Or not. Either way, you are qualified to become a member of the Writer’s Guild and get an agent, and you get a feather in your cap many of the other 100,000 scripts floating around do not have.
So what if they want to buy? Even better. But it has its ups and its downs. First the downs. Your story is no longer yours. You might get lucky and get to stay on the project the whole time, but most likely you’ll get paid to do the first re-write, orthey’ll send it to someone else. After that it can completely changed. Just an example, Armageddon first started as a story about a man who can predicts a huge asteroid coming to Earth. Obviously it got changed a little. But that’s the way it goes. As you get better and more well known, you get to have a little more control. Maybe. As for financial compensation, the Writer’s Guild minimums as of June, 1998, were $36,000 for a low budget screenplay, $69,000 for a big budget screenplay. So it can be worth it.
And then if you want to take the easy way, write the story as a book first, publish, wait for it to become a success, and then the studios will come to you. Just as a note, ‘easy’ was a joke.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
To begin with, a few figures. Each year Hollywood is inundated with approximately 100,000 unproduced scripts. The chances of a first time writer being produced is approximately 140,000 to 1 (hey its better than the lottery!) Studios receive and review around 5,000 scripts a year, and of these a whopping 12 are sent on to become real live spectacles for the eyes and ears. Now to become one of those twelve there are a few paths. The first, and best chance for success (which in no means that its a good chance) is to get an agent. The Writers Guild Signatory Agent List provides a comprehensive listing of all agents who represent writers. So you start sending out inquiries and send you script on to positive replies. An agent is extremely valuable for two reasons. First, hey are known (or least better known that you most likely will be) and thus can get access to places you perhaps cannot, and second, they are familiar with the business and can help guide you through what could be an exremely difficult ordeal.
But maybe you don’t want an agent. Well you can sell it yourself, but just to make sure you don’t sell yourself short, the following is a list of the things you might want to know before going to battle for script.
Know what kind script you have in terms of budget, big- versus low-. Low-budget, despite a somewhat negative ring is not of inferior quality. According to the Writers Guild, low budget is around a million or less, though to many a low budget is perhaps closer to five or six million or less. Anything that requires many exotic locations, a great deal of special effects or major start is bumped into big budget. So basically know what kind of companies have the budget and inclination to produce your kind of script and don’t waste your time with the others.
Make sure you send it to a name, not a title. Your script gains a little more weight if you can manage to send it to a person. Now this does not necessarily mean you send your script to Joe Schmotz who you happen to know works at Universal. Try and find out the name of the story editor or creative executive. Then simply put their name on the query letter and script. At the very least it makes it look like you know what you’re doing.
Once you have the name, send a query letter stating that you have written a script you believe is consistent with the productions companies work, promises to be extremely profitable (money is always important), and that you would like to send it in for review. Send the letters off and respond with scripts to the positive replies.
To make things easy for yourself, register your script. Who knows, maybe it’ll become worth enough to be stolen. Its relatively easy to do this. Simply send a copy of the script and the fee to the WGAw office at:
WGAw
7000 West Third St
Los Angeles, CA 90048-4329
(213) 782-4520
Or call (213) 782-4540 to get information about script registration. The fee is minimal for non-members and it will safeguard your script from plagiarism. Just as a note though, don’t put your WGAw registration number on you scripts when you send it to producers, it just looks like you don’t trust them, and that’s not the way to off.
So assuming that your script passes the reader, is handed off to the story editor, is then handed off to a producer, who in turn gets the okay to go ahead from the president and you script is picked up. What then? The studio may decide to option it, meaning they pay between $5,000 and $10,000 for the chance to mull over it for a year or two and decide whether they want to take it, while you promise not to try to sell it anywhere else. Then they may decide to pick it up. Or not. Either way, you are qualified to become a member of the Writer’s Guild and get an agent, and you get a feather in your cap many of the other 100,000 scripts floating around do not have.
So what if they want to buy? Even better. But it has its ups and its downs. First the downs. Your story is no longer yours. You might get lucky and get to stay on the project the whole time, but most likely you’ll get paid to do the first re-write, orthey’ll send it to someone else. After that it can completely changed. Just an example, Armageddon first started as a story about a man who can predicts a huge asteroid coming to Earth. Obviously it got changed a little. But that’s the way it goes. As you get better and more well known, you get to have a little more control. Maybe. As for financial compensation, the Writer’s Guild minimums as of June, 1998, were $36,000 for a low budget screenplay, $69,000 for a big budget screenplay. So it can be worth it.
And then if you want to take the easy way, write the story as a book first, publish, wait for it to become a success, and then the studios will come to you. Just as a note, ‘easy’ was a joke.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
tep 3: Pre-Production Proper
Pre-production is the phase during which the film is planned. It is not a step that can be skipped, and its careful execution is the first step to ensuring that the film will turn out well. In a word it is planning. The previous discussion was that of the script. Once the script is submitted it is, in almost all cases, out of the writer’s hands. What happens next is different for each script. It may be bought by a studio, be picked up by an agent to be distributed to possible buyers, ect. Enter the producer. The producer will become attached to the film either during the buying stage, where he or she will be the sole investor or will pressure their studio into buying the script, or he or she may be assigned by their studio once the script comes into the general production pool. The producer will then look over the script and make the changes he or she believes to be necessary to strengthen the story. Often times this comes in the form of having a second writer re-write dialogue, ect. The original writer, unless he is still doing the re-writes due to contractual agreements or is extremely skilled and capable of polishing his or her own script, will have no part in this and will be either surprised or outraged or both at the changes being made to the script. Once the producer gets the script to where he or she feels comfortable with it, a director is chosen. The producers will seek out directors whose talents match the subject matter of the story, an example of this would be picking John Woo to direct an action thriller, rather than a romantic comedy, not that he couldn’t do it, but his forte’ is action.
Once the director is selected and placed on the team the bulk of planning begins. The director is the second screen for the script. He or she is given the opportunity to read the script and suggest further changes, however, they are usually only accepted if both the writer(s) and producer agree that it is a definite improvement, the idea being that incredible amounts of time have already been put into it and thus the material in it should be very well crafted, and thus most improvements have already been made. Once the script’s form is agreed on by all members, the director begins to choose his cast and crew. The producer will already have a list of possible stars to put in the lead and will most likely have approached them. The director and producer will then court a major star to join the film, or agree on another performer who will fill the role. (Note: a major star is not cast in a film so much as he or she decides to join the film, and may wield power to inflict changes both on the script but also the production) The director will also appoint a casting director to handle the casting of the other smaller roles. Simultaneously the director will appoint his production manager, who will begin to pay out the shooting schedule, his cinematographer, the person responsible for actually filming the movie, and his location manager, who will pick out possible locations for review. All the while the director will be working out his vision of the film. He does this using two methods, listed below.
Shooting Script: Once the story script reaches its most finished form and is distributed to the actors, the director creates what is known as a shooting script. While the script proper contains all the details of what the characters look and act like, and all of what the audience will eventually see, the shooting script details the other behind the camera aspects. Components of the shooting script include among other things camera shots/angles, lighting notes, character/prop placement, audio notes, and special effects notes. In addition to this the director creates the prop and location lists. Which detail the accessories needed for each scene, from as large as "hotel room" to as small as "cigarettes for Main Character’s pocket".
Storyboards: Once the director has created a visual image of how the movie will look, he applies it to every shot in the movie process known as storyboarding. Storyboardingis, in essence, drawing a comic book of the movie. Each shot in the movie is drawn and then labeled with movement notes, dialogue and sound effects, and any other pertinent information. It also provides with the opportunity to test the visual effectiveness of the story before physically filming, where he will have to waste time and money experimenting. In recent years, storyboarding has become even more advanced as storytellers look for even better ways to plan their stories. Two examples of this are The Return of the Jedi and Jurassic Park. For both movies, difficult sequences were pre-filmed using models and representative figures. In Jedi, the planning team used action figurines and dioramas to plan complex sequences such as the speeder bike sequence. The team of Park took it further, filming the entire film before hand using claymation to render every shot in the movie to test its effectiveness. No matter the technique for storyboarding, it is extremely valuable to the director when transferring the vision of the film from the mind to the big screen.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Pre-production is the phase during which the film is planned. It is not a step that can be skipped, and its careful execution is the first step to ensuring that the film will turn out well. In a word it is planning. The previous discussion was that of the script. Once the script is submitted it is, in almost all cases, out of the writer’s hands. What happens next is different for each script. It may be bought by a studio, be picked up by an agent to be distributed to possible buyers, ect. Enter the producer. The producer will become attached to the film either during the buying stage, where he or she will be the sole investor or will pressure their studio into buying the script, or he or she may be assigned by their studio once the script comes into the general production pool. The producer will then look over the script and make the changes he or she believes to be necessary to strengthen the story. Often times this comes in the form of having a second writer re-write dialogue, ect. The original writer, unless he is still doing the re-writes due to contractual agreements or is extremely skilled and capable of polishing his or her own script, will have no part in this and will be either surprised or outraged or both at the changes being made to the script. Once the producer gets the script to where he or she feels comfortable with it, a director is chosen. The producers will seek out directors whose talents match the subject matter of the story, an example of this would be picking John Woo to direct an action thriller, rather than a romantic comedy, not that he couldn’t do it, but his forte’ is action.
Once the director is selected and placed on the team the bulk of planning begins. The director is the second screen for the script. He or she is given the opportunity to read the script and suggest further changes, however, they are usually only accepted if both the writer(s) and producer agree that it is a definite improvement, the idea being that incredible amounts of time have already been put into it and thus the material in it should be very well crafted, and thus most improvements have already been made. Once the script’s form is agreed on by all members, the director begins to choose his cast and crew. The producer will already have a list of possible stars to put in the lead and will most likely have approached them. The director and producer will then court a major star to join the film, or agree on another performer who will fill the role. (Note: a major star is not cast in a film so much as he or she decides to join the film, and may wield power to inflict changes both on the script but also the production) The director will also appoint a casting director to handle the casting of the other smaller roles. Simultaneously the director will appoint his production manager, who will begin to pay out the shooting schedule, his cinematographer, the person responsible for actually filming the movie, and his location manager, who will pick out possible locations for review. All the while the director will be working out his vision of the film. He does this using two methods, listed below.
Shooting Script: Once the story script reaches its most finished form and is distributed to the actors, the director creates what is known as a shooting script. While the script proper contains all the details of what the characters look and act like, and all of what the audience will eventually see, the shooting script details the other behind the camera aspects. Components of the shooting script include among other things camera shots/angles, lighting notes, character/prop placement, audio notes, and special effects notes. In addition to this the director creates the prop and location lists. Which detail the accessories needed for each scene, from as large as "hotel room" to as small as "cigarettes for Main Character’s pocket".
Storyboards: Once the director has created a visual image of how the movie will look, he applies it to every shot in the movie process known as storyboarding. Storyboardingis, in essence, drawing a comic book of the movie. Each shot in the movie is drawn and then labeled with movement notes, dialogue and sound effects, and any other pertinent information. It also provides with the opportunity to test the visual effectiveness of the story before physically filming, where he will have to waste time and money experimenting. In recent years, storyboarding has become even more advanced as storytellers look for even better ways to plan their stories. Two examples of this are The Return of the Jedi and Jurassic Park. For both movies, difficult sequences were pre-filmed using models and representative figures. In Jedi, the planning team used action figurines and dioramas to plan complex sequences such as the speeder bike sequence. The team of Park took it further, filming the entire film before hand using claymation to render every shot in the movie to test its effectiveness. No matter the technique for storyboarding, it is extremely valuable to the director when transferring the vision of the film from the mind to the big screen.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Step 4: Production
Production is the most grueling part of filmmaking. The cast and crew can frequently spend 12 or more hours on the set, filming only three or four pages of script, often in very uncomfortable locations. This goes on for days, weeks, months with the same schedule day after day, review dailies (the footage shot yesterday), shoot today’s footage, prepare for tomorrow’s filming. For many people though, this is the most exhilarating part of production and this is indeed where "the magic happens." Yet to some people it sometimes seems strange that a movie that will eventually only occupy two hours onscreen could take months to film. However, it does, and here’s just a few of the reason why.
Lighting: One of the single most important elements to a film’s visual appearance is lighting. However perfect lighting does not exist and takes time to create. Lighting must be made consistent (or inconsistent depending) and mood-enhancing, yet remain unobtrusive. It takes a great deal of planning and then man-hours by electricians and their assistants to create a light set-up for even a small set.
To illustrate this I will take the story of fictional director Joe Schmotz, who is currently filming his next Oscar-winner, Killer Cows From The Martian Suburbs. Now the particular scene director Schmotz is filming today calls for a dark eerie setting as the main character first encounters the sinister Dark Cow who is trying to take over the world.
This particular scene starts with a long shot as we see the hero entering a dimly lit corridor. The next shot is a close-up of the main character’s face as he realizes the Dark Cow is blocking the corridor. The next shot is of the Dark Cow itself, smiling in typically sinister fashion. On the screen this takes all of fifteen seconds, yet this scene will take hours to film. First the main character’s movements must be choreographed for the first shot in a process called blocking. This is extremely important so that the character does not step out of the light and mess up the shot. Additionally the lighting must be placed so as to illuminate the main character’s initial entrance, but leave the surrounding area somewhat dark and gloomy. It takes a while for the to move lights into position and then practice the movements, since the actor has very little room in which to maneuver. Once every thing is set, the director does six takes to get two good pieces of footage.
The next shot is the close-up of the main character. But our lighting from before won’t work, because even though it was interesting to see shadows dappling off the face of out main character in the first shot, in the close up it will make him look like a zombie. So in this shot we need to change the lighting to light up his features more so we can see his eyes and mouth, while retaining the darkness around him. Thus the lights must be removed from their original positions and moved slightly to create our second light set-up. This time it takes closer to ten takes to get good footage because the director wants to experiment with the character looking scared, angry, and then both.
For our third shot we have to start from scratch. In the initial shot, the Dark Cow wasn’t even visible, since it would somewhat anticlimactic if the audience saw the Dark Cow before the character was surprised by it. So we have to create a whole new lighting scheme, this time lighting the Dark Cow in appropriately dim light while at the same time keeping enough illumination in the background to accentuate the griminess of his home as well as draw attention to his looming size. Though these are details that the audience will take up in the blink of an eye, it takes more time of careful preparation to properly execute. In addition to this, the director wants the Dark Cow to loom above the audience, so he wants a hole cut in the floor for the camera to sit in. This is not abnormal. Often shots in a movie will require special equipment such as dolly track, platforms, or holes, to be built while filming. And of course that’s not even counting the time it takes to make a cow stand on its hind legs and look menacing.
Location: Sometimes it is possible to film an entire movie on a sound stage, however, more than likely it requires some traveling. Since science has yet to create a teleportation device and all the magicians who know how to do it won’t reveal their secrets unless televised on broadcast television, it can take huge amounts of time to transport the cast and crew to even one location per day. To be quite frank there are probably close to 100 people involved in a major film, excluding crowd scene extras and so on, as well as literally tons of equipment to go along with them.
Weather: Mother Nature doesn’t really care about Hollywood and can quite frequently hamper production. Usually it is no more than a rain storm that stops production for a day or two, or a heat wave that causes shorter work days. But sometimes weather can be extremely costly. Such was the case of Kevin Costner’s Waterworld that saw entire sets destroyed and sunk by sea storms that not only seriously delayed the production, but also pushed the budget sky-high.
Previously I mentioned that lighting is one of the most important elements in a movie. In addition to lighting, and of course the actors, cinemotography is the key element in a film’s visual appearance. Though it takes years of either schooling or job experience to truly learn how to film well, there are a few basic pointers that anyone with a camera and eye towards making something better than a jerky home movie should know (because seriously, those "How to Film" videos they hand out now when you buy a camcorder are really just a twenty minutes session in which they try to sell you all the accessories).
Now very few of us who own basic film equipment are affluent enough to also be able to own a studio and lighting equipment to create the perfect lighting situations. To avoid bad lighting try to film in bright sunlight or extremely well lit rooms. If you film indoors you often end up with a yellow hue to the picture, this is because standard light bulbs emit a different wavelength of light than sunlight. Therefore, try to get lightbulbs that are sun-light balanced, meaning that the range of light it emits is the same as sunlight. Quite often this is not possible as these bulbs are fairly expensive. If this is the case, then it is possible to purchase gels to place over the camera. Depending on the size of your cameras lens, most newer models are only two or three inches across, you can purchase gel samplers from science equipment companies. Though these come in a somewhat inconvenient little cluster, for under ten dollars you can get up to 50 different kinds of filters that can change the color of incoming light or alter it for effects. With many of these filter samplers there are a number of gels that balance indoor light to sunlight, returning colors to their normal hues. Though this is somewhat of a cheezy way to get better light, its cheap and it works (most of the time).
The second part of good light is exposure. Exposure is, its simplest terms, brightness. Different amounts of light, and the amount desired for a particular mood affect your exposure, or brightness. Exposure is measured in f-stops, the higher the f-stop the less light is hitting the film. Another feature related to the lens is focus. Most camcorders come with automatic focus, however, for best results it should be disabled and you should focus manually otherwise it will frequently adjust itself and mess up your shot. To ensure that your whole scene is in focus when you use a zoom, zoom the camera in completely, focus it at that range, then zoom out. Focus does not change when you change to zoom distance, only when you change to physical distance between camera and object.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Production is the most grueling part of filmmaking. The cast and crew can frequently spend 12 or more hours on the set, filming only three or four pages of script, often in very uncomfortable locations. This goes on for days, weeks, months with the same schedule day after day, review dailies (the footage shot yesterday), shoot today’s footage, prepare for tomorrow’s filming. For many people though, this is the most exhilarating part of production and this is indeed where "the magic happens." Yet to some people it sometimes seems strange that a movie that will eventually only occupy two hours onscreen could take months to film. However, it does, and here’s just a few of the reason why.
Lighting: One of the single most important elements to a film’s visual appearance is lighting. However perfect lighting does not exist and takes time to create. Lighting must be made consistent (or inconsistent depending) and mood-enhancing, yet remain unobtrusive. It takes a great deal of planning and then man-hours by electricians and their assistants to create a light set-up for even a small set.
To illustrate this I will take the story of fictional director Joe Schmotz, who is currently filming his next Oscar-winner, Killer Cows From The Martian Suburbs. Now the particular scene director Schmotz is filming today calls for a dark eerie setting as the main character first encounters the sinister Dark Cow who is trying to take over the world.
This particular scene starts with a long shot as we see the hero entering a dimly lit corridor. The next shot is a close-up of the main character’s face as he realizes the Dark Cow is blocking the corridor. The next shot is of the Dark Cow itself, smiling in typically sinister fashion. On the screen this takes all of fifteen seconds, yet this scene will take hours to film. First the main character’s movements must be choreographed for the first shot in a process called blocking. This is extremely important so that the character does not step out of the light and mess up the shot. Additionally the lighting must be placed so as to illuminate the main character’s initial entrance, but leave the surrounding area somewhat dark and gloomy. It takes a while for the to move lights into position and then practice the movements, since the actor has very little room in which to maneuver. Once every thing is set, the director does six takes to get two good pieces of footage.
The next shot is the close-up of the main character. But our lighting from before won’t work, because even though it was interesting to see shadows dappling off the face of out main character in the first shot, in the close up it will make him look like a zombie. So in this shot we need to change the lighting to light up his features more so we can see his eyes and mouth, while retaining the darkness around him. Thus the lights must be removed from their original positions and moved slightly to create our second light set-up. This time it takes closer to ten takes to get good footage because the director wants to experiment with the character looking scared, angry, and then both.
For our third shot we have to start from scratch. In the initial shot, the Dark Cow wasn’t even visible, since it would somewhat anticlimactic if the audience saw the Dark Cow before the character was surprised by it. So we have to create a whole new lighting scheme, this time lighting the Dark Cow in appropriately dim light while at the same time keeping enough illumination in the background to accentuate the griminess of his home as well as draw attention to his looming size. Though these are details that the audience will take up in the blink of an eye, it takes more time of careful preparation to properly execute. In addition to this, the director wants the Dark Cow to loom above the audience, so he wants a hole cut in the floor for the camera to sit in. This is not abnormal. Often shots in a movie will require special equipment such as dolly track, platforms, or holes, to be built while filming. And of course that’s not even counting the time it takes to make a cow stand on its hind legs and look menacing.
Location: Sometimes it is possible to film an entire movie on a sound stage, however, more than likely it requires some traveling. Since science has yet to create a teleportation device and all the magicians who know how to do it won’t reveal their secrets unless televised on broadcast television, it can take huge amounts of time to transport the cast and crew to even one location per day. To be quite frank there are probably close to 100 people involved in a major film, excluding crowd scene extras and so on, as well as literally tons of equipment to go along with them.
Weather: Mother Nature doesn’t really care about Hollywood and can quite frequently hamper production. Usually it is no more than a rain storm that stops production for a day or two, or a heat wave that causes shorter work days. But sometimes weather can be extremely costly. Such was the case of Kevin Costner’s Waterworld that saw entire sets destroyed and sunk by sea storms that not only seriously delayed the production, but also pushed the budget sky-high.
Previously I mentioned that lighting is one of the most important elements in a movie. In addition to lighting, and of course the actors, cinemotography is the key element in a film’s visual appearance. Though it takes years of either schooling or job experience to truly learn how to film well, there are a few basic pointers that anyone with a camera and eye towards making something better than a jerky home movie should know (because seriously, those "How to Film" videos they hand out now when you buy a camcorder are really just a twenty minutes session in which they try to sell you all the accessories).
Now very few of us who own basic film equipment are affluent enough to also be able to own a studio and lighting equipment to create the perfect lighting situations. To avoid bad lighting try to film in bright sunlight or extremely well lit rooms. If you film indoors you often end up with a yellow hue to the picture, this is because standard light bulbs emit a different wavelength of light than sunlight. Therefore, try to get lightbulbs that are sun-light balanced, meaning that the range of light it emits is the same as sunlight. Quite often this is not possible as these bulbs are fairly expensive. If this is the case, then it is possible to purchase gels to place over the camera. Depending on the size of your cameras lens, most newer models are only two or three inches across, you can purchase gel samplers from science equipment companies. Though these come in a somewhat inconvenient little cluster, for under ten dollars you can get up to 50 different kinds of filters that can change the color of incoming light or alter it for effects. With many of these filter samplers there are a number of gels that balance indoor light to sunlight, returning colors to their normal hues. Though this is somewhat of a cheezy way to get better light, its cheap and it works (most of the time).
The second part of good light is exposure. Exposure is, its simplest terms, brightness. Different amounts of light, and the amount desired for a particular mood affect your exposure, or brightness. Exposure is measured in f-stops, the higher the f-stop the less light is hitting the film. Another feature related to the lens is focus. Most camcorders come with automatic focus, however, for best results it should be disabled and you should focus manually otherwise it will frequently adjust itself and mess up your shot. To ensure that your whole scene is in focus when you use a zoom, zoom the camera in completely, focus it at that range, then zoom out. Focus does not change when you change to zoom distance, only when you change to physical distance between camera and object.
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Step 5: Tips and Recommendations
So now we’re got good light and its in focus, what next? Composition of course! Even as video technology advances to point where it sometimes becomes difficult to distinguish between an image shot on film and an image shot by a camera there will always be ways to tell home movies from feature films, composition. This is where those how to film books get really worthless. Composition is how the image looks on your camera. Composition takes years to master, but this is a just a basic guide to filming, so here’s a few pointers.
There are five basic shots. Extreme long shot (ELS), Long Shot (LS), Medium Shot or Bust Shot (MS), Close-up (CU), and Wayne and Garth’s favorite, the Extreme Close-Up (ECU).
So now we’re got good light and its in focus, what next? Composition of course! Even as video technology advances to point where it sometimes becomes difficult to distinguish between an image shot on film and an image shot by a camera there will always be ways to tell home movies from feature films, composition. This is where those how to film books get really worthless. Composition is how the image looks on your camera. Composition takes years to master, but this is a just a basic guide to filming, so here’s a few pointers.
There are five basic shots. Extreme long shot (ELS), Long Shot (LS), Medium Shot or Bust Shot (MS), Close-up (CU), and Wayne and Garth’s favorite, the Extreme Close-Up (ECU).
Step 6: Post-Production
Post-Production involves every step after primary filming, editing and correction0, reshoots, marketing, ect. The process of reshooting is simple enough in concept (though perhaps not in actual process) that we can skip that one. In a similar fashion, marketing is something so intangible that there is very little that can be explained about it. Which leaves editing and correction.
Editing serves two purposed. First, the logistics of production often make it impossible to film in sequence. And even in the extremely rare case where a story is filmed in order, there are still numerous takes and unnecessary footage between the good shots. Thus, editing serves to eliminate this unwanted footage and to place the events in a coherent order (I can hear you now saying, "Duh!") Second, even simple actions take up a great deal of time on film. Think about if for a second. Imagine a sequence of a person getting dressed. In real life this process takes as a minim five minutes. Five minutes in the course of the human life is insignificant, but five minutes in the course of a two hour movie is a horrendous amount of time to spend on meaningless action. If that same person pulled clothes out of a closet and in the next shot walked into the kitchen, the obvious conclusion the audience will make is said person got dressed. Thus editing can serve to eliminate tedious and unnecessary footage so that the audience may focus on the story. Editing can also serve to create. The human eye, when viewing a scene does not remain stationary. Watch two people talking, your eye will jump from person to person to watch speech or gauge reaction. You’ll find it extremely difficult to watch both at the same time and you could end up cross-eyed so I wouldn’t suggest it. Editing also serves to mimic this action of selective viewing. When a conversation between two people is put on film, it is filmed (usually) by switching back and forth between the characters to again, watch speech or gauge reaction. The natural switching back and forth is unobtrusive because in reality, you do it all the time. Thus editing serves to place shots into a coherent storyline, eliminate unnecessary footage, and create better flow.
Editing can also have a very important impact through artistic applications. An example of this is rhythm. An example of this would be a fight sequence. As the two enemies approach each other, the shots are long, keeping the pace slow. As tension builds, the shots become shorter, building energy. When the fight begins the shots become short and fast, lending the scene energy which the audience in turn interprets. Finally, one fighter falls to the ground and the shots become long again. The energy of the scene drops and the audience relaxes. The editing of shots created a rhythm which heightened the power of the scene.
Other examples of techniques in which the editing serves more interesting purposes are parallel editing and montage. Parallel editing is a technique in two separate scenes are shown to take place at the same time. To do this, the editor cuts the two scenes together switching from one to the other. This is often used in scenes where the character is racing against time, such as the bomb’s clock counting down as the character tries to get out of the building. A montage sequence is another technique in which extremely short shots are edited together in quick succession to create general emotion.
Editing is not the entirety of post-production however. Once the picture is edited into its final narrative form, there are hundreds of tiny elements that need to be tweaked. Occasionally, different light schemes will produce different colors between shots, the differences are always slight, however, they need to be corrected to create continuity between shots. This process is called color-correction. Titles and credits, a key part to any movie, are also designed and added. Also at this stage any computer generated effects are added to footage, though in truth this will happen before the scene is edited. While these visual components are polished, the audio portions of the film are tweaked elsewhere. Very rarely are the audio components you hear in the theater the sounds recorded during footage. Audio is recorded onto a separate track, which is kept in time with the footage via a sync machine (this is so your movie doesn’t end up looking like a cheap dubbing job). The microphones used to record the actors voices are extremely precise in their range, they pick up sound only from the air immediately in front of the actor. This keeps the voice quality as high possible. Later on, background is added in when it can be adjusted to suitable levels. So if two characters are walking amidst a midnight orchard replete with singing nightbirds, the dialogue is really the only noise recorded at the time. The other noises, the crickets, nightbirds and the wind, are either recorded at the same location or elsewhere and then added in so that the night wildlife only adds to the mood of the scene, rather than drowning out the speech of the characters.
In a low budget perspective, it is often possible to plug an external mic into your camera, this mic can then either be placed on a boom to pick up their voices and it can be hidden within the scene (but only if the characters aren’t moving). The additional background noise can be recorded and added in later using a two-channel mixer.
The final step of making the movie is to show it. The key factor to remember here is to show to it to an audience you believe matches the film. If you make a documentary film about wildlife in your area, most teenagers will not like it, on the other hand, the local chapter of environmentalists or nature enthusiasts would probably enjoy watching it. By avoiding groups that would turn the film down simply for its genre, you are well on your way to making films that an audience can enjoy.
So there you have it, the basic outline of the filmmaking process. Hope it gave you some new insights, or tips, or maybe just passed the time. :)
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Post-Production involves every step after primary filming, editing and correction0, reshoots, marketing, ect. The process of reshooting is simple enough in concept (though perhaps not in actual process) that we can skip that one. In a similar fashion, marketing is something so intangible that there is very little that can be explained about it. Which leaves editing and correction.
Editing serves two purposed. First, the logistics of production often make it impossible to film in sequence. And even in the extremely rare case where a story is filmed in order, there are still numerous takes and unnecessary footage between the good shots. Thus, editing serves to eliminate this unwanted footage and to place the events in a coherent order (I can hear you now saying, "Duh!") Second, even simple actions take up a great deal of time on film. Think about if for a second. Imagine a sequence of a person getting dressed. In real life this process takes as a minim five minutes. Five minutes in the course of the human life is insignificant, but five minutes in the course of a two hour movie is a horrendous amount of time to spend on meaningless action. If that same person pulled clothes out of a closet and in the next shot walked into the kitchen, the obvious conclusion the audience will make is said person got dressed. Thus editing can serve to eliminate tedious and unnecessary footage so that the audience may focus on the story. Editing can also serve to create. The human eye, when viewing a scene does not remain stationary. Watch two people talking, your eye will jump from person to person to watch speech or gauge reaction. You’ll find it extremely difficult to watch both at the same time and you could end up cross-eyed so I wouldn’t suggest it. Editing also serves to mimic this action of selective viewing. When a conversation between two people is put on film, it is filmed (usually) by switching back and forth between the characters to again, watch speech or gauge reaction. The natural switching back and forth is unobtrusive because in reality, you do it all the time. Thus editing serves to place shots into a coherent storyline, eliminate unnecessary footage, and create better flow.
Editing can also have a very important impact through artistic applications. An example of this is rhythm. An example of this would be a fight sequence. As the two enemies approach each other, the shots are long, keeping the pace slow. As tension builds, the shots become shorter, building energy. When the fight begins the shots become short and fast, lending the scene energy which the audience in turn interprets. Finally, one fighter falls to the ground and the shots become long again. The energy of the scene drops and the audience relaxes. The editing of shots created a rhythm which heightened the power of the scene.
Other examples of techniques in which the editing serves more interesting purposes are parallel editing and montage. Parallel editing is a technique in two separate scenes are shown to take place at the same time. To do this, the editor cuts the two scenes together switching from one to the other. This is often used in scenes where the character is racing against time, such as the bomb’s clock counting down as the character tries to get out of the building. A montage sequence is another technique in which extremely short shots are edited together in quick succession to create general emotion.
Editing is not the entirety of post-production however. Once the picture is edited into its final narrative form, there are hundreds of tiny elements that need to be tweaked. Occasionally, different light schemes will produce different colors between shots, the differences are always slight, however, they need to be corrected to create continuity between shots. This process is called color-correction. Titles and credits, a key part to any movie, are also designed and added. Also at this stage any computer generated effects are added to footage, though in truth this will happen before the scene is edited. While these visual components are polished, the audio portions of the film are tweaked elsewhere. Very rarely are the audio components you hear in the theater the sounds recorded during footage. Audio is recorded onto a separate track, which is kept in time with the footage via a sync machine (this is so your movie doesn’t end up looking like a cheap dubbing job). The microphones used to record the actors voices are extremely precise in their range, they pick up sound only from the air immediately in front of the actor. This keeps the voice quality as high possible. Later on, background is added in when it can be adjusted to suitable levels. So if two characters are walking amidst a midnight orchard replete with singing nightbirds, the dialogue is really the only noise recorded at the time. The other noises, the crickets, nightbirds and the wind, are either recorded at the same location or elsewhere and then added in so that the night wildlife only adds to the mood of the scene, rather than drowning out the speech of the characters.
In a low budget perspective, it is often possible to plug an external mic into your camera, this mic can then either be placed on a boom to pick up their voices and it can be hidden within the scene (but only if the characters aren’t moving). The additional background noise can be recorded and added in later using a two-channel mixer.
The final step of making the movie is to show it. The key factor to remember here is to show to it to an audience you believe matches the film. If you make a documentary film about wildlife in your area, most teenagers will not like it, on the other hand, the local chapter of environmentalists or nature enthusiasts would probably enjoy watching it. By avoiding groups that would turn the film down simply for its genre, you are well on your way to making films that an audience can enjoy.
So there you have it, the basic outline of the filmmaking process. Hope it gave you some new insights, or tips, or maybe just passed the time. :)
Filmmaking
Film Schools
Studios/Agencies and Guilds
Film Festivals
Monday, December 21, 2009
Brandon's Word: Clint Eastwood's Invictus is a Thoughtful Success
December 10, 2009
by Brandon Lee Tenney
Clint Eastwood is of a different time. His style is one of measured calculation and controlled photography. He directs with purpose and poise. He's an actor's director, affording his cast lengthy takes without much manipulation or interference from him behind the camera. At times, he uses this strategy to a fault, thinking himself a one-take director or lingering too long, too often. But more often than not, Eastwood's style is a refreshing taste of what once was. And there's no denying that the man just knows movies. With Invictus, Eastwood's latest directorial venture, all the best of him is present, making it his best work since Letters from Iwo Jima and, before that, Unforgiven.
As the film opens, we're given a brief history lesson on Nelson Mandela via stock footage. This footage, however, replaces Mandela with Morgan Freeman playing the just-elected, controversial President of South Africa. It's a clever choice, for from that moment on it's not Freeman that's seen, he is Nelson Mandela, and to make such a recognizable face so invisible is a testament to both Freeman and Eastwood. It's this pairing that really causes Invictus to thrive. Morgan Freeman portrays Mandela with gravitas and humility; it's a phenomenal display. Watching such a seasoned actor give such a thoughtful performance as shot by the consummate actor's director is a joy.
Invictus is at its best when the characters are provided the opportunity to just talk, to engage in honest conversation. About half-way through, Matt Damon, who plays the captain of the South African Springboks rugby team, is called to Mandela's presidential office for tea. It's in this scene that Mandela and Francois Pienaar engage in a conversation that resonates throughout the rest of the film. It's that powerful, for both the characters and the viewer. Like Freeman, Matt Damon gives a humble, understated performance. Damon is also invisible, at home in the background when necessary, an everyman who rises to spur on real change.
There's hope throughout the film, but it never crosses over into idealistic territory. As a counterpoint, there's also real tension. The constant threat of the unstable South African populous, the threat of Mandela's assassination, is ever looming. Eastwood uses this to great avail. Even in one of the more overblown scenes of threat, and this may be considered to be a spoiler, a plane buzzes the stadium before the final rugby match. It's hard not to feel a pang of dread in your stomach in this post-9/11 world.
In tandem with Invictus's political overtones, social commentary, and historical narrative is a very competent sports story. It doesn't pave new ground, the South African Springboks don't have a chance as the film gets underway; they're underdogs and garner little faith from their mostly-white fanbase and rampant opposition from the blacks. As a representation of the fresh wound that is the Apartheid, the Springboks are hated by blacks; most of them making a point to root for any and every team other than the Springboks. It's Mandela that realizes rugby may prove to quickly abolish that segregated attitude, this is, if the Springboks can win the Rugby World Cup.
Like the television show Friday Night Lights, every game shown on screen is not just a rugby match. Each moment the Springboks are shown on the pitch is a battle against segregation, against the old ways of South Africa, a battle for Mandela's change and his vision. The subtext puts your heart into every hit, even if you've never seen a rugby match in your life. And the games are all very exciting in their own right. Don't worry about the game of rugby, it's quickly and masterfully explained during a beautiful, heartwarming scene where the Springboks teach a group of black children about the game.
Invictus, though, is not without fault. During the rugby matches, Eastwood's propensity to use slow motion wore my patience thin. The bitter end of the final match is especially slow-mo heavy, causing it to feel very overlong and forcing the emotional catharsis to be sustained instead of hitting hard and fast, which does its best to kill the euphoria. There's also a very poignant scene where Francois Pienaar brings his team to see exactly where Mandela spent so long in prison which is all but ruined by the inclusion of a hokey ghost version of Nelson Mandela. I knew why Pienaar was there, I didn't need it bashed over my head with an apparition. And, of course, there's the music. For the most part the African tribal-fusion score is passable, but there are a few low points, as there are always seem to be in an Eastwood film. One such song croons the word "colorblind" as Mandela touches down in a helicopter to wish the Springboks good luck before the final match, as if we didn't realize it means more than just a World Cup victory. We get it, Clint.
Now, there's a lot of vitriol collecting around Invictus. And while it's not my favorite film of the year, the best directed, the best written, or home to the best acting (though Morgan Freeman does deserve a nomination), all of the above are so solid in their executions that it's appalling that anyone could make the argument that Invictus is, in any way, a bad film. Invictus is perhaps competent to a fault, to use the words of a friend of mine. It's affecting and well done and hits its marks far more often than missing. And I just liked it. I really liked it. I love what Clint Eastwood is able to do behind the camera, even if I'm not always thrilled with what's happening in front of it (Million Dollar Baby, anyone?). I love his austere style and controlled hand. The man knows movies. And I'll be there to watch his on opening day, every time.
Discover More: Editorials, Opinions
Email this • Share on Facebook •
Related Articles
» Bryce Dallas Howard Joins the Cast of Clint Eastwood's Hereafter
» Official Poster for Clint Eastwood's Invictus Finally Debuts
» Sound Off: Clint Eastwood's Invictus - What Did You Think?
» Official Trailer for Clint Eastwood's Invictus Debuts Online!
» Clint Eastwood's New Film Titled Invictus, Out in December
» First Look: Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela in Invictus
Reader Feedback - 14 Comments »
1
Clint Eastwood is icon and i like him better actor than a Director but i did like Grand Torino im not so intrested about invictus it not my type of film i sounds to me it more political than realy entertaing.
Cineprog on Dec 10, 2009
2
this makes me even more excited for the Word Cup in SA. I know it's not rugby, but still.
branden on Dec 10, 2009
3
Clint is the man
Trey m on Dec 10, 2009
4
2 thoughts that made me, an ignorant 20 something year old, not like the film as much as I should have.
1 - I don't know Nelson Mandela's background. It was never clearly said what he did to deserve his jail sentence.
2 - I don't know rugby. I wish we could have taken 5 of last 20 slow mo rugby minutes and inserted them as Matt Damon explaining more of the basics of Rugby to the kids. Or even the body guards getting a lesson in it. Something more, because I was lost and uninterested toward the end for all the game matches.
Tim on Dec 10, 2009
5
>>With Invictus, Eastwood's latest directorial venture, all the best of him is present, making it his best work since Letters from Iwo Jima and, before that, Unforgiven.
Nonsense. Million Dollar Baby is his best film & vastly superior - as is Gran Torino - to Unforgiven. Looking forward to Invictus.
Verity on Dec 10, 2009
6
did you bash MDB??
it is probably his best effort to date
nelson on Dec 10, 2009
7
its amazing damon can go from playing a fat,goofy bastard in the informant to a rugby team captain,in the same year.
that said,I can't think of any other sport more boring to be made a film subject than rugby.maybe cricket,netball and water polo.so maybe i'll watch this in 20 years when it plays on HBO and i'm too damn old to care.
as for gran torino,i swear i must've either watched a different film altogether or seen a rough,early cut of the film.it was so thoroughly badly-acted and the characters so racially stereotyped,it was really one of the worst i've seen in my life.
a single man review soon,i hope
twispious on Dec 10, 2009
8
#7, Cricket, try the film Lagaan. BUt net ball and water polo, lol i can imagine how boring that would be. But rugby film set in Europe with a criminal/gangster back tone would be great.
I love Freeman, and i dig Eastwood so this is a must see, also the fact that Nelson got chosen to host the 2010 World Cup, so that makes it even more of a reason. I liked Letters but i thought that he did a great job in Million Dollar Baby, not sure if you forgot it or thought it wasnt up to par.
Nikhil Hariharan on Dec 10, 2009
9
Matt Damon is becoming an amazing actor. I dont know how he gains weight, loses weight etc for his roles so easily. Or at least he makes it look easy. And thank God for Clint Eastwood. Someone's making some good insightful quality films.
JimD on Dec 10, 2009
10
This is one of my most anticipated movies - I am a South African what can I say.
That World Cup was unbelievable.
Maybe SA will win the 2010 Soccer World Cup and they will make a movie about that.
I somehow doubt that.
Phillip Gibb on Dec 10, 2009
11
#7, rugby is one of the fastest, most physical yest beautiful games everplayed, easy to criticise from your sofa, watching NFL ( the sport that stops for TV Ad breaks!!) Lookin gforward to this along the same lines as a Ghandi type biopic ( withsome great rugby visuals I hope!) Even though Matt Daman is far too small to play the great Pienaar, should be good.
ConnachtFan on Dec 11, 2009
12
Unforgiven is his best movie.
Anyway, I'm excited for this.
SlashBeast on Dec 11, 2009
13
#4 I find it amazing you've never even bothered to watch a rugby game before in your 20-something year old life. Esspecially since 1/2 the world actually plays it. Imagine someone from outside US trying to grasp the fundamentals of your 'football' in a 2hr movie. As for your lack of knowledge RE Mandela, I honestly have no comment. I forgive CE for assuming Americans have any knowledge of the world outside their country…
Rich on Dec 11, 2009
14
I wasn't defending myself. I said my knowledge and lessened enjoyment was due to my own ignorance. I was just filling the role of devil's advocate as the general american population who will see this and may hold the same ignorances.
Not saying it is right or that CE was wrong, just a point of view that I feel some will share.
Tim on Dec 11, 2009
Leave a Comment
Name (required) E-mail (required) Website
Notify me of replies via e-mail
December 10, 2009
by Brandon Lee Tenney
Clint Eastwood is of a different time. His style is one of measured calculation and controlled photography. He directs with purpose and poise. He's an actor's director, affording his cast lengthy takes without much manipulation or interference from him behind the camera. At times, he uses this strategy to a fault, thinking himself a one-take director or lingering too long, too often. But more often than not, Eastwood's style is a refreshing taste of what once was. And there's no denying that the man just knows movies. With Invictus, Eastwood's latest directorial venture, all the best of him is present, making it his best work since Letters from Iwo Jima and, before that, Unforgiven.
As the film opens, we're given a brief history lesson on Nelson Mandela via stock footage. This footage, however, replaces Mandela with Morgan Freeman playing the just-elected, controversial President of South Africa. It's a clever choice, for from that moment on it's not Freeman that's seen, he is Nelson Mandela, and to make such a recognizable face so invisible is a testament to both Freeman and Eastwood. It's this pairing that really causes Invictus to thrive. Morgan Freeman portrays Mandela with gravitas and humility; it's a phenomenal display. Watching such a seasoned actor give such a thoughtful performance as shot by the consummate actor's director is a joy.
Invictus is at its best when the characters are provided the opportunity to just talk, to engage in honest conversation. About half-way through, Matt Damon, who plays the captain of the South African Springboks rugby team, is called to Mandela's presidential office for tea. It's in this scene that Mandela and Francois Pienaar engage in a conversation that resonates throughout the rest of the film. It's that powerful, for both the characters and the viewer. Like Freeman, Matt Damon gives a humble, understated performance. Damon is also invisible, at home in the background when necessary, an everyman who rises to spur on real change.
There's hope throughout the film, but it never crosses over into idealistic territory. As a counterpoint, there's also real tension. The constant threat of the unstable South African populous, the threat of Mandela's assassination, is ever looming. Eastwood uses this to great avail. Even in one of the more overblown scenes of threat, and this may be considered to be a spoiler, a plane buzzes the stadium before the final rugby match. It's hard not to feel a pang of dread in your stomach in this post-9/11 world.
In tandem with Invictus's political overtones, social commentary, and historical narrative is a very competent sports story. It doesn't pave new ground, the South African Springboks don't have a chance as the film gets underway; they're underdogs and garner little faith from their mostly-white fanbase and rampant opposition from the blacks. As a representation of the fresh wound that is the Apartheid, the Springboks are hated by blacks; most of them making a point to root for any and every team other than the Springboks. It's Mandela that realizes rugby may prove to quickly abolish that segregated attitude, this is, if the Springboks can win the Rugby World Cup.
Like the television show Friday Night Lights, every game shown on screen is not just a rugby match. Each moment the Springboks are shown on the pitch is a battle against segregation, against the old ways of South Africa, a battle for Mandela's change and his vision. The subtext puts your heart into every hit, even if you've never seen a rugby match in your life. And the games are all very exciting in their own right. Don't worry about the game of rugby, it's quickly and masterfully explained during a beautiful, heartwarming scene where the Springboks teach a group of black children about the game.
Invictus, though, is not without fault. During the rugby matches, Eastwood's propensity to use slow motion wore my patience thin. The bitter end of the final match is especially slow-mo heavy, causing it to feel very overlong and forcing the emotional catharsis to be sustained instead of hitting hard and fast, which does its best to kill the euphoria. There's also a very poignant scene where Francois Pienaar brings his team to see exactly where Mandela spent so long in prison which is all but ruined by the inclusion of a hokey ghost version of Nelson Mandela. I knew why Pienaar was there, I didn't need it bashed over my head with an apparition. And, of course, there's the music. For the most part the African tribal-fusion score is passable, but there are a few low points, as there are always seem to be in an Eastwood film. One such song croons the word "colorblind" as Mandela touches down in a helicopter to wish the Springboks good luck before the final match, as if we didn't realize it means more than just a World Cup victory. We get it, Clint.
Now, there's a lot of vitriol collecting around Invictus. And while it's not my favorite film of the year, the best directed, the best written, or home to the best acting (though Morgan Freeman does deserve a nomination), all of the above are so solid in their executions that it's appalling that anyone could make the argument that Invictus is, in any way, a bad film. Invictus is perhaps competent to a fault, to use the words of a friend of mine. It's affecting and well done and hits its marks far more often than missing. And I just liked it. I really liked it. I love what Clint Eastwood is able to do behind the camera, even if I'm not always thrilled with what's happening in front of it (Million Dollar Baby, anyone?). I love his austere style and controlled hand. The man knows movies. And I'll be there to watch his on opening day, every time.
Discover More: Editorials, Opinions
Email this • Share on Facebook •
Related Articles
» Bryce Dallas Howard Joins the Cast of Clint Eastwood's Hereafter
» Official Poster for Clint Eastwood's Invictus Finally Debuts
» Sound Off: Clint Eastwood's Invictus - What Did You Think?
» Official Trailer for Clint Eastwood's Invictus Debuts Online!
» Clint Eastwood's New Film Titled Invictus, Out in December
» First Look: Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela in Invictus
Reader Feedback - 14 Comments »
1
Clint Eastwood is icon and i like him better actor than a Director but i did like Grand Torino im not so intrested about invictus it not my type of film i sounds to me it more political than realy entertaing.
Cineprog on Dec 10, 2009
2
this makes me even more excited for the Word Cup in SA. I know it's not rugby, but still.
branden on Dec 10, 2009
3
Clint is the man
Trey m on Dec 10, 2009
4
2 thoughts that made me, an ignorant 20 something year old, not like the film as much as I should have.
1 - I don't know Nelson Mandela's background. It was never clearly said what he did to deserve his jail sentence.
2 - I don't know rugby. I wish we could have taken 5 of last 20 slow mo rugby minutes and inserted them as Matt Damon explaining more of the basics of Rugby to the kids. Or even the body guards getting a lesson in it. Something more, because I was lost and uninterested toward the end for all the game matches.
Tim on Dec 10, 2009
5
>>With Invictus, Eastwood's latest directorial venture, all the best of him is present, making it his best work since Letters from Iwo Jima and, before that, Unforgiven.
Nonsense. Million Dollar Baby is his best film & vastly superior - as is Gran Torino - to Unforgiven. Looking forward to Invictus.
Verity on Dec 10, 2009
6
did you bash MDB??
it is probably his best effort to date
nelson on Dec 10, 2009
7
its amazing damon can go from playing a fat,goofy bastard in the informant to a rugby team captain,in the same year.
that said,I can't think of any other sport more boring to be made a film subject than rugby.maybe cricket,netball and water polo.so maybe i'll watch this in 20 years when it plays on HBO and i'm too damn old to care.
as for gran torino,i swear i must've either watched a different film altogether or seen a rough,early cut of the film.it was so thoroughly badly-acted and the characters so racially stereotyped,it was really one of the worst i've seen in my life.
a single man review soon,i hope
twispious on Dec 10, 2009
8
#7, Cricket, try the film Lagaan. BUt net ball and water polo, lol i can imagine how boring that would be. But rugby film set in Europe with a criminal/gangster back tone would be great.
I love Freeman, and i dig Eastwood so this is a must see, also the fact that Nelson got chosen to host the 2010 World Cup, so that makes it even more of a reason. I liked Letters but i thought that he did a great job in Million Dollar Baby, not sure if you forgot it or thought it wasnt up to par.
Nikhil Hariharan on Dec 10, 2009
9
Matt Damon is becoming an amazing actor. I dont know how he gains weight, loses weight etc for his roles so easily. Or at least he makes it look easy. And thank God for Clint Eastwood. Someone's making some good insightful quality films.
JimD on Dec 10, 2009
10
This is one of my most anticipated movies - I am a South African what can I say.
That World Cup was unbelievable.
Maybe SA will win the 2010 Soccer World Cup and they will make a movie about that.
I somehow doubt that.
Phillip Gibb on Dec 10, 2009
11
#7, rugby is one of the fastest, most physical yest beautiful games everplayed, easy to criticise from your sofa, watching NFL ( the sport that stops for TV Ad breaks!!) Lookin gforward to this along the same lines as a Ghandi type biopic ( withsome great rugby visuals I hope!) Even though Matt Daman is far too small to play the great Pienaar, should be good.
ConnachtFan on Dec 11, 2009
12
Unforgiven is his best movie.
Anyway, I'm excited for this.
SlashBeast on Dec 11, 2009
13
#4 I find it amazing you've never even bothered to watch a rugby game before in your 20-something year old life. Esspecially since 1/2 the world actually plays it. Imagine someone from outside US trying to grasp the fundamentals of your 'football' in a 2hr movie. As for your lack of knowledge RE Mandela, I honestly have no comment. I forgive CE for assuming Americans have any knowledge of the world outside their country…
Rich on Dec 11, 2009
14
I wasn't defending myself. I said my knowledge and lessened enjoyment was due to my own ignorance. I was just filling the role of devil's advocate as the general american population who will see this and may hold the same ignorances.
Not saying it is right or that CE was wrong, just a point of view that I feel some will share.
Tim on Dec 11, 2009
Leave a Comment
Name (required) E-mail (required) Website
Notify me of replies via e-mail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)