For you to say 99% of directors suck at blocking takes me back to that scene in Boogie Nights where Dirk talks about directing his own films & Jack Horner immediately cuts in & says, "I don't let him block his own shots!".
I'm sure in the editing room they caught it because they were splicing different takes. They probably thought, screw it, the audience wont notice it. And they were right.
This video gave me a whole new perspective on the directing job - a job that I even did myself a couple of times (on a small scale, of course) Well done! Also loved to see Ryan George mentioned in this. He really has a genius comedic timing:)
I am viewing your oeuvre as a master class in criticism because I am launching a podcast presuming to evaluate a TV series. You are endlessly informative, helpful, insightful and just plain hilariously funny. I come to your videos late, as it seems, and that is regrettable. So much time not knowing these analytic fundamentals wasted. Oh, well, here I am and here you already were. Kudos.
When you search up how to direct, most times it gets into artistic vision and how they wanted to convey a tone. Which ks great and all, but it's like telling me what brushstrokes to use and I don't know how to use a brush. This is one of the few that actually shows *how* to direct on a technical level, and for that you have a new subscriber.
Dude! This is my new favourite channel, I am telling you! I haven't gotten so much value out of a channel since I discovered FilmCourage! You are a legend! Keep making this bombs! All my best wishes!
There are so many parties and talents involved in filmmaking; but only one is the storyteller. The director is directing all the elements into a telling.
This is incredibly reductive. What about the cinematographer? What about the editor who puts the movie together? What about the screenwriter? Is he/she not a storyteller despite writing the actual story?
Perhaps blocking was more critical at a time when cameras were less manageable and use of film stock made filming from many angles expensive. Now due to cheaper cost and more convenient camera handling, it is not as highly regarded?
That’s a great way to look at it. Sounds right to me. I recommend you watch Patrick Willems’ video “How IMAX made Chris Nolan a better filmmaker” Due to technical limitations such as an IMAX camera being humongous and expensive, Nolan was forced to be more subdued and economic with his shot selection and movement. It’s a great watch
I don't know anything about this, but my guess would be that it has more to do with the actual artistry and aesthetics than with saving money. When I watch a movie, I'm interested in the way that the story is being told through film. Composition seems crucial to that. If I just want to know the story itself, I'll read a synopsis.
Yes, that's the reason why, at the time, there wasn't a variety of shot compositions per scene. Once it became possible to make a bigger distinction between cinema and theater, most filmmakers began to focus on elements (especially visual ones) that could only be used in this medium. And yeah, there are countless examples of movie scenes that wouldn't be effective without multiple camera angles or movements. However, going from one extreme to the other isn't a solution. As this video demonstrates, it depends on what a scene requires individually based on the script. Sometimes, shooting a scene with a theater mentality enhances whatever is going on in the story. The close-up and the medium shot shouldn't feel like the default choices.
A director's job is to tell you what to look, when and why. You can have a great scene with a bunch of people sitting at a table talking and barely moving - The Big Short does this brilliantly - but but I wouldn't make a habit of it. The approach taken by Lumet in 12 Angry Men - also about a bunch of people sitting around a table talking - offers not only more variety in that particular situation, but the tools and thinking behind it can be applied to numerous other scenes in other movies, none of which will suffer from visual stagnation as a result. So glad you dropped in a shot from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which features some of the best camera/actor blocking ever seen on film - made all the more impressive by the fact that it was Nichols' first directorial outing. It should be watched with sound on and off - repeatedly - by anyone possessing the talent, courage, hubris or blood-alcohol level required to think they can direct.
Your videos on directing fascinate me. I've always blocked like this when I direct (probably because I was raised watching the classics). But now I look for it in other people's blocking and it just isn't there. It's a little nuts. Like, I love Dune Part 2. And it is "beautifully shot" but there's only one or two shots in it where the layout changes within a shot. It's almost always, set up the shot, and then have them stand there then cut to another framed shot, and then another framed shot. There's almost zero movement in the blocking to show the dynamics between the characters. I think it works for Dune part 2. But Now I can't unsee it. It's a great way to shoot a movie if you want a bunch of still images to use for promotion. But dang, things aren't nearly as dynamic. Maybe It would be thought as distracting, or that the composition would be "forced" but idk. I much prefer the classic style of blocking.
It *can* be distracting, but it depends on how it's executed. In fact, this channel has a couple of videos on the subject of "invisible directing". Also, big productions don't usually promote the project with screenshots of scenes; they hire someone to go to set and take photos. The angles/movements of the movie camera and the blocking of the actors wouldn't interfere with whatever the photographer is trying to capture.
Man, I recently found your channel and I must say you are a sight for sore ears and the other way around! I'm hooked. Great! Great! (Scottish accent for obvious reasons)
I'd like to know about all of these in something like "Das Boot" where every aspect of this is necessarily so constrained. Maybe I'll go watch it again!
@@Moviewise Awesome, thanks =) I thought as much, he's got a very distinctive look in his eyes that is exactly the same as they are 50 years later in Shawshank. His acting is really great in Shawshank, stands out even amongst the heavy weights in the cast...definitely going to watch the Asphalt Jungle now!
I'd love to see you do this same video again but use clips exclusively from films by Kubrick and Hitchcock as examples of good directing. And you're right, "The Asphalt Jungle" was an amazing movie, I just watched it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and was blown away by it, even the small part played by Marilyn Monroe.
I can confidently say that I need to take notes, I'll never remember all this until it's a habit...task one watch all of John Huston's stuff, can't hurt.
Many years ago, I suggested that the Academy should change the names of its awards categories to something more accurate -- from "Best" (too vague and simplistic) to "Most Noticeable," or even just "Most." As in "Most Acting" or "Most Directing" or "Most Editing" or "Most Screenwriting" (which is Oscar-ese for "Most Dialog," since many think that a screenplay is just talk). Even though the members of the Academy work primarily in the movie biz, what gets their attention and approbation is usually whatever is the most obvious. They can't award it if they don't notice it!
12:11 we know, moviewise, we know. just get ryan george to make a full feature-length film already. the guy could only simply do a backflip, snap the bad guy's neck and save the day and still have my interest at its peak
This is a great video, but a lot of this comes down to other people as well, such as cinematographers and editors regarding the composition and timing. And some directors have no say in the editing, or simply allow others to take complete control
I agree, many directors leave their cinematographers to decide the best composition. It’s why the word “Auteur” is used to distinguish between directors who take control of every aspect of the process including the script (Hitchcock and Kubrick didn’t actually write their own scripts but they would consult daily with the writer and tell them what to leave in or take out) and directors who are a hired hand on the set and rest is decided by various people.
Something I've always wondered is, if the diretor is responsible for angle, blocking and composition then what, if any, creative input does the DP have? Is it the case that on some films the DP is actually doing most of this, and on others it's the director?
Ecellet video buddy, couldn't agree more. You must then hate david fincher! Now am interested to know if you enjoy his film and his style of filmmaking. You definitely should be making a video on this lol!
Composition is the cinematographer's job, continuity is the script supervisor's job, and timing is the editor's job. Performance and approval are the director's job, although that's not the usual names for them; performance is usually called "directing" (because you're directing the actors) and approval is called "producing" (it's commonly believed that "producing" means paying for everything, which is incorrect, that's called "financing"). Also you left out my favorite line from the "Scott of the Antarctic" director, when he says that his movie is "pro good things, and anti bad things".
Wait, isn't the cinematographer responsible for the framing and composition ? He's the one who handles the camera, chooses the lenses and all right? Why does the director have to do the composition?
The frame is such an important aspect of a film’s identity. It would be irresponsible for a director to not think about composition. Unfortunately some directors do leave it to their cinematographers, but the greats rarely do. Cinematographers, like any good crew member, is there to help the director achieve the vision. They might suggest ideas or help the director achieve the composition.
Mise-en-scene refers to everything that appears on screen and soundtrack (literally, "put-in-the-scene"). Blocking refers specifically to the movements of actors and objects in relation to the frame. The term is taken from the world of theatre, where directors and actors have to make sure they're not standing in front of each other and thereby "blocking" important information from spectators' view, though the best practitioners do more than just avoid mistakes: they also actively _use_ blocking to highlight particular actions or lead spectators to pay attention to a particular character's facial expression even when they're not speaking. This is even more true in cinema, where blocking applies to more than just actors: the camera moves around, meaning the frame can change, and objects and properties on-set are likelier to get in the way of things than the (mostly) static stage equivalents.
Quantum of Solace is the most disappointing film that I have ever seen. I was so excited to see it. The locations, the concepts, probably even the script, were teed up to be a great Daniel Craig 007 action movie. Instead, it gave me the feeling of being on the spinning tea cups after eating bad seafood on a sweltering Florida day.
You know it's bad when Family Guy calls you on it and lord above don't get me started on Quantum of Solace what they hell were Babs and bro thinking when they hired that dude. I know who he is but I refuse to even type his name. He's dead to me.
This video has a very confident ending 😆
And sensitive scripting
Deftly incisive.
😜
That Braveheart scene was hilarious.
which scene is it?
For you to say 99% of directors suck at blocking takes me back to that scene in Boogie Nights where Dirk talks about directing his own films & Jack Horner immediately cuts in & says, "I don't let him block his own shots!".
I've watched Braveheart 15, maybe 20 times in my life. I never noticed the weapon continuity bit! 🤣
The movie was so intriguing that the mistakes are harder to notice. In a bad film it'll be easy to notice cuz you're not invested in the story.
I'm sure in the editing room they caught it because they were splicing different takes. They probably thought, screw it, the audience wont notice it. And they were right.
🤣that Shakespeare comparison and the mumbling guy still gets me everytime
Gerard is a gem
yeah especially that: ruclips.net/video/NMpAE4L7n2Y/видео.html @@chadrobert116
Thanks
This video gave me a whole new perspective on the directing job - a job that I even did myself a couple of times (on a small scale, of course) Well done!
Also loved to see Ryan George mentioned in this. He really has a genius comedic timing:)
hi there hello its me im a ryan george fan
For such a small channel you make great vids
I know 😃 this giy is killing it
I am viewing your oeuvre as a master class in criticism because I am launching a podcast presuming to evaluate a TV series. You are endlessly informative, helpful, insightful and just plain hilariously funny. I come to your videos late, as it seems, and that is regrettable. So much time not knowing these analytic fundamentals wasted. Oh, well, here I am and here you already were. Kudos.
Did you launch your podcast?
When you search up how to direct, most times it gets into artistic vision and how they wanted to convey a tone. Which ks great and all, but it's like telling me what brushstrokes to use and I don't know how to use a brush.
This is one of the few that actually shows *how* to direct on a technical level, and for that you have a new subscriber.
This marked the beginning of a great yt channel, and, surprisingly, this video still holds up.
Best explanation of directing i ever heard!
What I liked about this video is its clever assured runtime. Perfect 13 minutes. No second less.
I guess the "Approval" category is where most of the infamous "Studio Interference" happens.
Dude! This is my new favourite channel, I am telling you!
I haven't gotten so much value out of a channel since I discovered FilmCourage! You are a legend! Keep making this bombs! All my best wishes!
Its unreal how much insight you have, i hope your channel continues to grow
Yeah I totally agree! I have moments in films where I'm thinking, why am I here at this POV? WHY?! WHY?! WHY AM I HERE NOW?!
This is the most confident RUclips recommendation I've ever gotten!
Bless your heart. Its easier now to be a good director than ever as there are an overwhelming amount of terrible directors.
There are so many parties and talents involved in filmmaking; but only one is the storyteller. The director is directing all the elements into a telling.
This is incredibly reductive. What about the cinematographer? What about the editor who puts the movie together? What about the screenwriter? Is he/she not a storyteller despite writing the actual story?
I have watched this many times now and it has opened my eyes to laziness all around me.
I love this channel and really appreciate the technical yet accessible approach to filmmaking
Another great video here ...
Perhaps blocking was more critical at a time when cameras were less manageable and use of film stock made filming from many angles expensive. Now due to cheaper cost and more convenient camera handling, it is not as highly regarded?
That’s a great way to look at it. Sounds right to me.
I recommend you watch Patrick Willems’ video “How IMAX made Chris Nolan a better filmmaker”
Due to technical limitations such as an IMAX camera being humongous and expensive, Nolan was forced to be more subdued and economic with his shot selection and movement. It’s a great watch
I don't know anything about this, but my guess would be that it has more to do with the actual artistry and aesthetics than with saving money. When I watch a movie, I'm interested in the way that the story is being told through film. Composition seems crucial to that. If I just want to know the story itself, I'll read a synopsis.
Yes, that's the reason why, at the time, there wasn't a variety of shot compositions per scene. Once it became possible to make a bigger distinction between cinema and theater, most filmmakers began to focus on elements (especially visual ones) that could only be used in this medium. And yeah, there are countless examples of movie scenes that wouldn't be effective without multiple camera angles or movements. However, going from one extreme to the other isn't a solution. As this video demonstrates, it depends on what a scene requires individually based on the script. Sometimes, shooting a scene with a theater mentality enhances whatever is going on in the story. The close-up and the medium shot shouldn't feel like the default choices.
A director's job is to tell you what to look, when and why. You can have a great scene with a bunch of people sitting at a table talking and barely moving - The Big Short does this brilliantly - but but I wouldn't make a habit of it. The approach taken by Lumet in 12 Angry Men - also about a bunch of people sitting around a table talking - offers not only more variety in that particular situation, but the tools and thinking behind it can be applied to numerous other scenes in other movies, none of which will suffer from visual stagnation as a result.
So glad you dropped in a shot from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which features some of the best camera/actor blocking ever seen on film - made all the more impressive by the fact that it was Nichols' first directorial outing. It should be watched with sound on and off - repeatedly - by anyone possessing the talent, courage, hubris or blood-alcohol level required to think they can direct.
Your videos on directing fascinate me. I've always blocked like this when I direct (probably because I was raised watching the classics). But now I look for it in other people's blocking and it just isn't there. It's a little nuts. Like, I love Dune Part 2. And it is "beautifully shot" but there's only one or two shots in it where the layout changes within a shot. It's almost always, set up the shot, and then have them stand there then cut to another framed shot, and then another framed shot. There's almost zero movement in the blocking to show the dynamics between the characters. I think it works for Dune part 2. But Now I can't unsee it. It's a great way to shoot a movie if you want a bunch of still images to use for promotion. But dang, things aren't nearly as dynamic. Maybe It would be thought as distracting, or that the composition would be "forced" but idk. I much prefer the classic style of blocking.
It *can* be distracting, but it depends on how it's executed. In fact, this channel has a couple of videos on the subject of "invisible directing". Also, big productions don't usually promote the project with screenshots of scenes; they hire someone to go to set and take photos. The angles/movements of the movie camera and the blocking of the actors wouldn't interfere with whatever the photographer is trying to capture.
@@VicenteTorresAliasVits this channel is amazing. I love his content
That's one of the funniest openings to a video I've seen.
Man, I recently found your channel and I must say you are a sight for sore ears and the other way around! I'm hooked. Great! Great! (Scottish accent for obvious reasons)
so glad i found your channel
Cracked on sudden Ryan George
praising Ryan George is super easy barely an inconvenience
Finally a video that's not pretentious movie bullshit!😃
Dude! 6 words - 'in-stitches' and 'right-on-the-money' 😂 love your channel!
This was excellent video and gave in short time lots of good information!
I'd like to know about all of these in something like "Das Boot" where every aspect of this is necessarily so constrained. Maybe I'll go watch it again!
The Deft Hand of Director sounds like an MMO drop
Great work!
el mejor canal de cine
Is the bartender in the scene around 10:00 Brooks from Shawshank Redemption?
YES! That’s a young James Whitmore, great eye!
@@Moviewise Awesome, thanks =) I thought as much, he's got a very distinctive look in his eyes that is exactly the same as they are 50 years later in Shawshank. His acting is really great in Shawshank, stands out even amongst the heavy weights in the cast...definitely going to watch the Asphalt Jungle now!
Really good content, thank you
I love it. I laughed so much at this. At least my directing won't be as bad as the slow-moving rock guy now. Hopefully.
8:32 Thank you so much for this One!
9:38 Giga CHAD MOVE & BLOCKING! Creating Depth!
Brilliant and confident ;-)
great stuff. though i can't comprehend how one can talk about composition and omit Kurosawa.
He can. He talked about manly men in cinema without mentioning Toshiro Mifune.
I really liked this.
I'd love to see you do this same video again but use clips exclusively from films by Kubrick and Hitchcock as examples of good directing. And you're right, "The Asphalt Jungle" was an amazing movie, I just watched it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and was blown away by it, even the small part played by Marilyn Monroe.
Greatest RUclips video ever. ;)
Good video and funny too!
I can confidently say that I need to take notes, I'll never remember all this until it's a habit...task one watch all of John Huston's stuff, can't hurt.
You're great!
Another masterpiece! I shared four channel on my main channel today. Hope it helps!
Many years ago, I suggested that the Academy should change the names of its awards categories to something more accurate -- from "Best" (too vague and simplistic) to "Most Noticeable," or even just "Most." As in "Most Acting" or "Most Directing" or "Most Editing" or "Most Screenwriting" (which is Oscar-ese for "Most Dialog," since many think that a screenplay is just talk). Even though the members of the Academy work primarily in the movie biz, what gets their attention and approbation is usually whatever is the most obvious. They can't award it if they don't notice it!
Before we get into the weeds, I really enjoyed early Speilberg like Jaws. The choreography (blocking) seems exceptional.
12:11 we know, moviewise, we know.
just get ryan george to make a full feature-length film already.
the guy could only simply do a backflip, snap the bad guy's neck and save the day and still have my interest at its peak
Love your show!!!! Sword it is mates.
Thank you
you are a genius.
You get multiple bonus points for referencing "Scott of the Antarctic." "I played Mrs. Jesus Christ in a geological syncline!"
This is a great video, but a lot of this comes down to other people as well, such as cinematographers and editors regarding the composition and timing. And some directors have no say in the editing, or simply allow others to take complete control
I agree, many directors leave their cinematographers to decide the best composition. It’s why the word “Auteur” is used to distinguish between directors who take control of every aspect of the process including the script (Hitchcock and Kubrick didn’t actually write their own scripts but they would consult daily with the writer and tell them what to leave in or take out) and directors who are a hired hand on the set and rest is decided by various people.
Very cool video!
Something I've always wondered is, if the diretor is responsible for angle, blocking and composition then what, if any, creative input does the DP have? Is it the case that on some films the DP is actually doing most of this, and on others it's the director?
Ecellet video buddy, couldn't agree more.
You must then hate david fincher! Now am interested to know if you enjoy his film and his style of filmmaking. You definitely should be making a video on this lol!
Braveheart continuities mistake is so hilarious LOL😂😂😂😂
I'm here for the title, and the thumb... 🤣🤣🤣
Love the Mumbling guy and the incoherent action scene. Yeah what's going on and why?
'Sells camera, picks up pen to become an accountant.' Thanks. I now know absolutely nothing about anything.
Heh, terrific, thank you
Composition is the cinematographer's job, continuity is the script supervisor's job, and timing is the editor's job. Performance and approval are the director's job, although that's not the usual names for them; performance is usually called "directing" (because you're directing the actors) and approval is called "producing" (it's commonly believed that "producing" means paying for everything, which is incorrect, that's called "financing"). Also you left out my favorite line from the "Scott of the Antarctic" director, when he says that his movie is "pro good things, and anti bad things".
Does anyone know what the Steve Martin movie is at the 4 minute mark? Moviewise, any help please?
Bowfinger (Frank Oz, 1999)
Hilarious comedy!
Thanks for the reply, I will give it a watch and like your videos for the algo ❤@@Moviewise
Clarkson's FAAARM...and I'm sorry but the chaddest chad is Christopher LEE!!
This video was ‘deftly directed’
5:24 what movie is this?
That's a commercial for UBS : ruclips.net/video/BKoUjbzVvSY/видео.html
Music by Holst, The Planets, Jupiter
Wait, isn't the cinematographer responsible for the framing and composition ? He's the one who handles the camera, chooses the lenses and all right? Why does the director have to do the composition?
The frame is such an important aspect of a film’s identity. It would be irresponsible for a director to not think about composition. Unfortunately some directors do leave it to their cinematographers, but the greats rarely do. Cinematographers, like any good crew member, is there to help the director achieve the vision. They might suggest ideas or help the director achieve the composition.
you are hilarious ❤
You are hilarious!
Is blocking the same as mise en scene?
Mise-en-scene refers to everything that appears on screen and soundtrack (literally, "put-in-the-scene"). Blocking refers specifically to the movements of actors and objects in relation to the frame. The term is taken from the world of theatre, where directors and actors have to make sure they're not standing in front of each other and thereby "blocking" important information from spectators' view, though the best practitioners do more than just avoid mistakes: they also actively _use_ blocking to highlight particular actions or lead spectators to pay attention to a particular character's facial expression even when they're not speaking. This is even more true in cinema, where blocking applies to more than just actors: the camera moves around, meaning the frame can change, and objects and properties on-set are likelier to get in the way of things than the (mostly) static stage equivalents.
Uauuuu
Writers dont even wavedash anymore 😒
Quantum of Solace is the most disappointing film that I have ever seen. I was so excited to see it. The locations, the concepts, probably even the script, were teed up to be a great Daniel Craig 007 action movie. Instead, it gave me the feeling of being on the spinning tea cups after eating bad seafood on a sweltering Florida day.
You know it's bad when Family Guy calls you on it and lord above don't get me started on Quantum of Solace what they hell were Babs and bro thinking when they hired that dude. I know who he is but I refuse to even type his name. He's dead to me.
Remember: deft awfully close to daft
Villeneuve is a mediocre talent. He happens to be a shiny rock found in a puddle of mud, not a sapphire.
I would agree with you but you make up word as well and there is no room in a review for a dictionary.
Hilarious! did you know that rotten tomato reviews are really written by one person, a guy named Sven with an unnatural affection for thesauruseses.
Consensuses .
You know that there are female directors too, right? Just checking.
Half of what youre taking about are more a DOPs job rather than the one of a director
What film is at 7:47?