Filmmaking / Directing : Discrepancy between idea versus realization by Vital Butinar

Very good post, Vital. It must be hard for the Location Scout to find something similar to what a screenwriter has written. You're absolutely right about having it produced close to what you've imagined. Spot on for your shoot. all the best.

Vital Butinar Your story reminds me of a couple years ago I was LP/AD on the eminent Amir Naderi's last film "Magic Lantern" which we shot with Jacqueline Bisset and Robert Beltran, in Los Angeles (Amir is one of the world's preeminent art film directors). Amir doesn't work from any kind of set script. And one of his greatest techniques is to "let the location speak" to him. He was meticulous in selecting a location, and would walk through it, meditate on the story and scenes before he would approve it. When it came time to shoot, he would again walk through everything with the actors, and consider what the location did to the theme and the story, and the feeling in that scene. He didn't storyboard anything out at all. He envisioned things, but threw his visual idea away even before getting to set. He often gave different directions to talent based on the way they seemed to interact with the environment. He treated location as an integral symbol to each scene, and each location spoke to him as he was in process.

As a director, this was new to me. Of course location and production design are important. When we envision our scenes, we build up the set in our mind, and add in metaphor or symbol as part of our constructed reality. In Amir's case, he had a reality in mind, but instead of trying to construct or design that or shoe-horn his idea it into a particular location, the location became an organic part of the creative process.

Now this is a very artistic viewpoint, and reflects the way Amir liked to create. I think most of us are terrified of that kind of process because, if nothing else, we need to hit certain story elements within a time and money budget. We can't afford to do anything on the fly. With Magic Lantern, Amir was funding it himself, so if he wanted to spend extra time somewhere (and he very often did), then it was his call. We usually can't afford that with other people's money.

However, it certainly did give me a different perspective on location. I am not so concerned now about the "perfect" location because I know that I can work within any reasonable location and it may in fact be better in the end. It has made me more attentive to organic processes of the actors and other creatives on set. I get better results, and less disappointed if something doesn't turn out the way I thought it would, because it is always better. And I am less tense and enjoy the process more.

That's what I like to think of as the Director's cinematic vision. The setting becomes nearly a character unto itself and many strong Actors understand how to play it accordingly. Storyboards, set design & dressing, lighting and a whole bunch of other stuff must be juggled with the result that nothing is cast in stone. Story fluidity takes preference and the final result always benefits.

Based on a class I took Ultra High Speed Rewrite, it depends on the timeline (30, 15, 7, 3 and 1 day) turnaround.

I can address the topic from a (classical music) composer perspective. You also find a similar scenario: initial ideas take their own life and - if you allow me an allegory - it is like a river: you have the water, and its power, you know the source/well, you know the destination, but the details often produce meanders or even cascades or whatever other unexpected "accidents" that give the whole thing its own character.

In such cases, the main artistic decision (I speak now as a composer, not as a filmmaker, it might be different) is if you allow the music to run its own way, or you try to regain absolute control over it.

I don't want to sound too dogmatic (or melodramatic) here, but I rather think one must decide on a case by case basis.

Very interesting points of view. Thank you guys.

Thank you Claude Gagne. Well it is produced now to what I'm happy with but I will never say that we could have done it better if we have a budget. Which I'm fully aware is the biggest constraint that we had.

But on the other side I understand what you're saying Shadow Dragu-Mihai and we had the same luxury of time in preproduction and in post production. But unfortunately didn't have this luxury during production. My estimate told me that we needed four days but we could only have three days because the talen only had so much time. But due to unforced complications we only had two days and had to do everything within that time.

So most of the time I was content with the first or second take.

But I do understand your story and it's very interesting. Now that I think of it we almost always find a way how to do just that. I always come up with a plan but I've never had a problem from deviating from the plan to either what we have or time wise.

Very interesting Doug Nelson I like the term. I'd call it director's vision and cinematic fluidity. Definitely the characters play into their parts and this gives the location a new dynamic connecting them. Maybe that's the key when talent gets into character they utilize the location in the way the character in the story would and that makes the location plug into the story. Very interesting.

Tasha Lewis 2 OK I understand so the more time you have to shoot something the easier it is to utilize a location if I understand correctly.

Juan Maria Solare oh very nice analogy with the river and I completely agree and understand it. Kind of like a road trip when you know where you're going but have all sorts of interesting stuff you didn't plan for happen on the way. Very cool.

It's really interesting thinking about things and how different pints of view enforce and help you understand the processes at work.

Very cool. Thank you guys!

Good insight, Vital. Reminds us that filmmaking is collaborative and we should never restrict that process.

John Ellis very true.

I think about one mentor's advice all the time. He said something like 30% of you on the screen is a success. I used to take changes personally, get upset over shitty budgets, cheap Producers, cheap all around sets. Constant battle of craftspeople vs. Suits.

One time I wrote a birthday scene with an El Mariachi Band, big backyard, green grass, and what was actually filmed was two dudes cooking chicken on a $10 BBQ grill in an alleyway. I told the Director, "Why the fuck are we even trying? Let's do one take and go home early."

Anyway, film making is a compromise. Win some, lose some. Keep improving our storytelling and maybe one day, talent matches the budget. Everyone wins.

@Shadow I understand Amir’s train of thought albeit he had luxury of being in charge of set funding. Location can be a frame of mind aswell as visual experience. Often cheap props aren’t even noticed as such because actors get inside audiences head with great performances. Great acting takes audience any place (unless props totally crap) whether background is plywood or oak. Some classic films were shot with the basics and some Hollywood blockbusters get basic rotten tomato score.

@Vital You're so lucky being in a position to execute your original train of thought if you want to albeit realize end result differs if lending yourself to compromise. I have this luxury with self produced small Indies but if on set working for others I've learnt to accept I can only ever give it my best shot. Whatever's on my hard disk will be a merge of whatever other brain skill sets happen to be the crew. Every project has a different set of artists and end result is juxtaposition of the melting pot on shoot day even if a legal blueprint is wavered by executive producers. I used to get upset same as @Dan and take changes personally but grew to realize it's a waste of energy.

Every profession got many levels of compromises which sometimes can be seen, most often will be hidden because the way the team formed a bonding. Be the end result is good or bad it truly doesnt matter when everyone's approval is there. Yes there is one or few who holds that pact helping the final product/film, team intact. Sometimes it can be from a DP, Editor or Director Or writer or even producer. It's an understanding which makes us all feel satisfied with end result. There is never going to be perfect picture. If we try perfection that loses it's abstraction which is core of a creativity.

Dan MaxXx you're right. Filmmaking is a set of compromises coupled together with finding solutions to problems and improving over time.

Debbie Croysdale thank you. I actually figured this out fairly quickly that if I wasn't willing to compromise t a degree we would never create anything.

Rohith Kumar I agree filmmaking is a team sport of sorts and it is a collective vision of everyone involved. My job as the director is to decide if something fits or doesn't.

I think the key is to surround yourself with people who either have a similar vision as you do or are able to understand and pickup on what you want.

Thanks guys for contributing. Very interesting points of view.