Year: 2012

Establishing scene using sound in Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol

As a small kid, I used to watch serial called JAG. I remember, that with each new scene, you would see a green text appearing in the lower left corner of the screen, telling you what time is it, place and location. It is a great way to establish the scene, but there is even better way.

Stories happen in time and place, which (both time and place) can be characterized by soundscape or acoustic environment. The acoustic environment can be created by sound effects, spoken word, music or all of these elements in combination. What is really important here is that it really doesn’t matter so much which elements will be used, but how they’ll be used and to which purpose.

For example, if you were to establish a movie scene using only acoustic environment (without any visuals), you’d probably think a lot about the sounds, which are really specific for the given time and location.

Time

The sounds you’ll hear during the day will be probably much different from sounds you’ll hear during the night, the same holds true for seasons like summer or winter. Sound can also be used to establish time period as well, think of sounds of 19th century (steam locomotive)  or sounds of 1990’s (tape recorder).

Place

Sound works also very well for establishing locations. You could for instance use sounds of drilling machine, cable crane etc., to establish a construction site. Or a dialogue between doctor and nurse to establish a hospital environment. Or music.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011)

At certain point in the movie, IMF team led by Ethan Hunt has to go to India. The scene starts with the picture above, but what’s interesting here is the music playing in the background.

You’ll hear light percussions, sitar and other instruments typical for eastern music. In other words, the music establishes the location, telling us that we are in India now.

If we come back to establishing scene (both time and place) using only sound, we have to mention also some drawbacks. This method works mostly only with general locations (like construction site, but not specific, or 19th century, but not a specific year). For example, it would be really hard to establish the place where I live using only sound, unless someone would mention the name in the dialogue.

Nevertheless, if you have the opportunity to establish the scene using sound, by all means do it, it’s cinematic!

Cinematic dialogue in Sideways: Words with subtext

In the previous post, I wrote about what does the word cinematic mean to me. If we apply it to the dialogue, than we are talking about subtext.

Speaking with subtext is a great way how to talk about difficult or delicate topics, like the first sexual experience between you and your partner. You almost never talk directly in this situation, you don’t say out loud what you really mean or want. Speaking with subtext in this case is great – for several reasons: It’s fun, it’s romantic and it leaves the other person with certain space for his/her imagination and fantasy.

Talking about subtext reminds me of a screenwriting book by Xander Bennett, here is an excerpt from the book:

“If you can say the same thing with subtext, use subtext instead. Better yet, see if you can achieve the same effect using action instead of dialog. Screenwriter Scott Myers likes to talk about the scene in Sideways where the protagonist and the romantic lead are talking about their favorite wines…except that, no, they are not. “requires constant care and attention”, “fragile and delicate”, “constantly evolving” – they are actually spilling their guts about how they see themselves. It’s a beautiful scene. But what if they had really been talking about themselves, without the “buffer zone” of wine to create some emotional distance? It would have been awkward, simplistic, and on-the-nose.”

I won’t write about what the movie is about, because others already did, so I’ll leave you this time with a script excerpt from the movie, with the dialogue scene Xander Bennett was talking about.

The wine dialogue scene:

MAYA
Can I ask you a personal question?

MILES
Sure.

MAYA
Why are you so into Pinot? It’s like a thing with you.

MILES
I don’t know. It’s a hard grape to grow. As you know. It’s thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It’s not a survivor like Cabernet that can grow anywhere and thrive even when neglected. Pinot needs constant care and attention and in fact can only grow in specific little tucked-away corners of the world. And only the most patient and nurturing growers can do it really, can tap into Pinot’s most fragile, delicate qualities. Only when someone has taken the time to truly understand its potential can Pinot be coaxed into its fullest expression. And when that happens, its flavors are the most haunting and brilliant and subtle and thrilling and ancient on the planet. MILES   I mean, Cabernets can be powerful and exalting, but they seem prosaic to me for some reason. By comparison. How about you?

MAYA
What about me?

MILES
I don’t know. Why are you into wine?

MAYA
I suppose I got really into wine originally through my ex-husband. He had a big, kind of show-off cellar. But then I found out that I have a really sharp palate, and the more I drank, the more I liked what it made me think about.

MILES
Yeah? Like what?

MAYA
Like what a fraud he was.

MAYA
No, but I do like to think about the life of wine, how it’s a living thing. I like to think about what was going on the year the grapes were growing, how the sun was shining that summer or if it rained… what the weather was like. I think about all those people who tended and picked the grapes, and if it’s an old wine, how many of them must be dead by now. I love how wine continues to evolve, how every time I open a bottle it’s going to taste different than if I had opened it on any other day. Because a bottle of wine is actually alive — it’s constantly evolving and gaining complexity. That is, until it peaks — like your ’61 — and begins its steady, inevitable decline. And it tastes so fucking good.

How do you define the word cinematic?

“The truth is the best stuff evolves when I don’t really think about it. The good ones just come naturally…” [Andrew Mohrer]

Downpour by Andrew Mohrer
Downpour by Andrew Mohrer

Few weeks ago I received through email inspiration several photos by Dj Poe (Andrew Mohrer, New York based photographer). And I was absolutely amazed. Usually, I move the emails right away to my email inspiration folder, but not this one. I couldn’t stop looking at the pictures. They were absolutely stunning, they looked like they were taken from a movie! In other words, they felt really cinematic.

Recently I was wondering, how would you actually define the word cinematic? (I guess I should know, since I’m writing a blog about cinematic storytelling.) So I decided to go back to that email and tried to answer, what does the word cinematic really mean to me.

Vanessa by Andrew Mohrer
Vanessa by Andrew Mohrer

Looking at the picture above, we can see that there is a shallow depth of field, the image has widescreen aspect ratio (plus the black bars at the top and bottom), the colors are desaturated, the lighting is great and the composition is perfect as well.

The problem is that you can find thousands of pictures  like this on the internet, books or magazines with shallow depth of filed, desaturated colors etc. And yet, most of them won’t feel cinematic at all.

So what I think makes the photos by Dj Poe really cinematic is their ability to make you ask questions. The most obvious question in this case would be:  Where is she looking at and why? You can come up certainly with many other more or less relevant questions like:

  • What car is she driving?
  • Is it her car? Is she a driver by occupation?
  • Is she waiting at a crossroad for a green light?
  • Is she waiting for someone?
  • What is going to happen next etc.?

But the point here is not what kind of questions makes the image ask you, but the fact itself, that it DOES make you ask those questions.

Making the viewer ask questions is a very powerful cinematic technique, because it makes the viewer involved, and that happens when there is a certain kind of mystery, a space for your (viewer) interpretation.

That’s the difference between evening news (basically random shots, no need for interpretation) and movies by Stanley Kubrick (every shot is a very well composed shot with layers of meaning).

What I think is great about this definition of the word cinematic, that is

  • adding additional layers of meaning
  • making viewer involved by asking questions
  • ability to create a story in viewer’s mind

is that it’s applicable not only to photos, but to music, visual effects, sound design, you name it. The point is: Great art poses questions. So leave a space for an interpretation of your work, would you? 🙂

Jun 11, 2012

Andrew actually read this article, look what he wrote under one of his photos Caught The Eye.

Jun 17, 2012

Stu Maschwitz mentioned today in his tweet link to his article that he wrote back in 2009: Fact, Moment, Light. I read it today and it’s brilliant!

The fact, moment and light are 3 zones he thinks about when taking a photo. He firstly describes each zone individually and then concludes, that best photos occupy the intersection of all three zones. At the end, he shows an example of such photo (FML shot).

FML shot by Stu Maschwitz
FML shot by Stu Maschwitz

But here comes the best part! Not only it is a FML shot, but it made Stu ask questions!

  • Is that a joint in his hand?
  • Is it so important that he keep it lit that he’s tied a lighter to his wrist?
  • What do those tattoos say? Caution tape?

Read the whole article by Stu by clicking here.