Chapter Four: The Hero’s Journey

For those who are delving into film study, the “hero’s journey” will most certainly be ran into eventually.  We have spoken about patterns in commercial films before.  To study, in particular, the protagonist’s storyline in common films, we will notice more of these patterns.

The hero’s journey is not a modern invention; in actuality, its basis relies on sagas from medieval times.  It’s efficiency is proven by it’s longevity, and learning about the hero’s journey is something vital to creating character depth and story structure. 

In Greek literature, there were gods and then there were “heroes”.  These heroes were fictional mortals who did fantastic deeds and embarked on adventurous journeys.  Likewise, modern cinematic heroes are often quite ordinary (or in other cases, not so ordinary) individuals to which a remarkable path unfolds. 

The second act of a movie, the roundabout 30 minute mark, begins a journey of sorts, individual to the protagonist.  For the next hour, a series of obstacles will probably face this hero, building his strength/character for the pinnacle third act.  Though simple in nature, this formula is really the overview for a good movie.  when done right, the audience will not even recognise this climatic build that is found in all other movies.  

Therefore, I do emphasizes the importance of research into the so-called “hero’s journey”.  There are many great books on the matter, but websites as simple as wikipedia will certainly be enlightening on the matter.

So, I will conclude, “Let the journey begin!”

Chapter Three–Character and Emotion

In this search on which we have embarked, you may find yourself circling the same philosophical questions.  “Why do we identify with people on the screen?”  “What makes a story meaningful?”  And as you wander around this abyss of unanswerable questions, you will begin to notice that character conception is a very essential part of making any movie.  I dare say, it is indeed the most important part.

I tend to hold a rather consistent view of the world–and history as well.  I have always recognized how very similar people are to each other.  From the African planes to the metropolis of New York, people are people.  People have not changed throughout history, and their variable upbringings cannot change the common attributes that human nature encompasses.  All of us–everyone in the world, posses the capability, and often the urge, to love, hate, live, learn, and make radical, otherwise senseless decisions.  In this respect, human nature cannot really be defined at all; we can merely recognize it. 

In fiction, however, there seems to be forced lines between characters.  Good guys are good guys because they are good.  Bad guys are bad guys because they are bad.  As children, reading fairytales, we need no further explanation.  But as we age, with time we crave to identify with heroes and even villains as well.  What drives the hero to save the day, while the villain seeks to destroy it?  And most importantly, what do they feel? 

Some experts in film would say that a good film is defined by the emotions which its audience experience.  This emotionally driven theory has many strong points, as well as occasional holes.  One of the main goals of the filmmaker is to manipulate the audience to feel precisely what the character on-screen is feeling.  However, there is another element that this theory overlooks.  The audience must also be able to feel emotions, independent from the characters.  Perhaps this can be defined as nostalgia–or simply the fourth wall separation, but there is something distinctly filmic regarding this attribute.  Whether it gives the audience information that the protagonist does not know, or uses the advantages of the multi-perspective outlook, that is unique to film, to reference other parts of the movie, there is a striking balance between the audience’s identification with the character and their wistful separation.  Exorcising this balance is a very important part of the art of filmmaking.

The First Day of ‘Redemption’

Today was the first day of shooting our short Christian film Writer’s Redemption.  We shot at a gorgeous Honest Abe Log Cabin showroom: absolutely stunning.  It was a hard day’s work, but I have to give all of the praise to our leading lady, Miss Chelsea Nye.  She did an amazing job –even when she was required to wear sweaters under the smoldering work lights, her acting didn’t waver.  Now, however, I am so tired that I can barely type…and believe me that us quite rare.  More updates are their way.

Film Theory Chapter 2: Critc vs. Commercial Appeal

I will try to keep this post relatively short, but when talking about film theory, it is important to define who your target audience is.  I think that we all have a stereotype for a “critically acclaimed” movie in mind; a very gritty, indie film that makes most of its primary audience depressed.  On the contrary, there is also the run-of-the mill commercial, summer blockbuster.  They are usually fairly lighthearted, action-packed and provide the escapism that appeals to a mass audience.  They will not win an Oscar, but they will surely make a lot of money.  These two very different types of movies have very different appeals.  When talking about film theory, and what makes a good film, you must remember that they cannot always be tested by the same rules.  So, for lack of confusion, from here on out in our lesson series, we will generally be talking about films that fit somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Hopefully, in the next few weeks, we will better understand the formula for making a “good” movie–one that can be applied to any specific type of film.  I know this was short, but I hope you enjoyed!

Film Theory Chapter One: The Basics

I am back with the promise of a new lesson series.  We have recently delved into the basics of screenwriting, but in order to truly understand what makes a good film, we are going to have to dissect the very components of film theory.

Often, I like to think of everything as unique sciences, looking for historical patterns.  This, however, has many fallbacks.  Filmmaking is not a science.  Art and science are two very different things.  Science is composed of by laws, while art has a far less predictable nature in itself.  Therefore, I will proceed with caution, carefull to take this into consideration as we examine film.  Seeing as screenwriting and film development are artforms, it would seem that no hard rules should guide it.  This assumption is not entirely correct.  Just because sketching a portrait is considered art, does not means that careful planning and guidelines should not be placed before-hand.  On the contrary, skilled artists have techniques that they follow precisely, with consideration of art’s unpredictable nature.

Studying succesful films in the past, the human mind, and story concept, the smart screenwriter has many tools to work with while creating an optimum story.  Over the next few weeks, we will study what techniques that have been proven to work successfully in the past and how we can apply them to our original works.

The basics of film theory are found in the  common structure of modern films.  Since the silent era, trial-and-error filmmaking has shown us the basic structures which yield the optimum results. 

A feature film is generally divided into three parts or acts.  The first act’s primary goal is to acquaint the audience with the main characters and create some bond between viewer and hero.  The second act sends the character on a journey that provokes some emotional stir in the already-existing relationship with the viewer.  The closing act brings the story to a close, in which the character either overcomes or is overcome by the opposing obstacle.  This three-act structure is the key to the modern film industry.  Understanding it, is necessary in understanding film theory.  Why does this present the optimum viewer experience?  Some film theorists say that it lies in the viewer’s connection with the protagonists, while others propose that it lies in the  nostalgia of the journey.  Either way,  both factors are necessary in a good film.  We will examine the basics of the three-act-system further in other articles.

There is also the intriguing notion of genres.  Ever since we were children, we have categorized films into obvious groups.  These groups are based on assumptions.  But what if we stopped assuming and examined the components that make up these genres.  What makes a romance a romance, and what are the assumed characteristics that go along with it?  What are the appeals of each genre?  Understanding these will benefit your story and likewise your film.

In the next few weeks, we will look at cinema through a new perspective, and grasp the very components that a good film are made up of.  I sincerely hope that it helps you in your filmmaking journey!

As always,

Savannah Belle

Lesson Twelve: The Translaton

In the past, I have often brushed on the subject of the common approach to screenwriting as well as my personal views concerning the matter.  There are so many different ways that you can view a screenplay.  You can look at it as a literary work, just like a novel.  Or, more commonly thought, you can call it a blueprint.  Technically, I know that a screenplay is a blueprint for a film, but I so often hesitate to say as much.  To undermine it as just an unfinished outline and not a work of art in itself, seems so wrong. 

So, in my research, I have come to some vague conclusion as to how I view screenwriting.  I will not pretend like I know everything; as that is far from the case.  Truthfully my own “conclusions”  (if they are even solid enough to call them that) are more a building collection of thoughts and impressions that come to me at random moments in time.

What if Hollywood were to view each and every screenplay as a valid artform in itself?  The best screenplays are ones that show you the picture of a finished film before you even make it.  What if you wrote a screenplay, just to write a screenplay?  There is some presumed optimism in this approach; however, a bit disheartening as well.  The truth of the matter is that anyone would love to see their story up on the big screen.  But in all honesty, I believe that there is great wisdom in focusing on the screenplay as a finished project.  Think about it.  I know, it goes against everything that Hollywood has taught you.  But what if screenplays were considered a valid translation of a story?

I know.  I have a tendency to over-glorify the screenplay.  But in the countless screenplays that I have read, I cannot help but feel that the key to a successful approach is to abandon the ”trust me, it’ll work later” method that is so heavily used today.  

So, in consideration of this theory, your following production should be compared to an adaption.  Your film is a translation of the screenplay.  It’s the same story, yet it speaks in a different “language”.  The story is not confined to words on a page, but rather has freedom to use images. 

So, I hope that all of this makes sense and that you have received information from this lesson series.  Next week will be the last for this one, but a new series will shortly follow!

Love you all!

Vannah B.

A New Milemarker!

Yesterday we reached a new milemarker for this blog.  150 all-time views!  That’s 150 people who have waisted their time to listen to me ramble on…

I do hope that you find it helpful!  Thank you all for your support!  I hope to put up a new lesson very soon! 

Love,

Savannah Belle