Interestingly I've been discussing the question of division of responsibility between director and writer with various real-life writers and editors over the past couple of weeks. The input of actors is also important of course, particularly in the B7 world, which changed so much under so many influences, over the four seasons.
One interesting issue which has come up is the difference the traditions of UK/Europe and America (sorry, don't know about Australia/nz).
It is my feeling that the British tradition emphasises dialogue much more, coming as it does on a strong and high status theatrical tradition. This has changed quite a bit over the past thirty years, with greater emphasis nowadays on telling a story through visual cues as well as dialogue (cf 'Trainspotting') , but obviously B7 comes well before this time.
An American script editor I was talking to (by email) yesterday, said to me that he felt the British tradition was as he put it 'proscenium oriented', which has advantages and disadvantages. I think the advantages are that the strong emphasis on dialogue forces strong characterization, and a drive towards wit. On the other hand (as we can see in B7) it may damage the credibility of the action sequences, as insufficient thought is given to developing them.
I thought you might be interested in this comment that he made, too, which I think illuminates an interesting aspect of the B7 style.
I don't think one should leave the choreography or staging or blocking
entirely up to the director. Most directors will appreciate a solidly blocked, staged and choreographed action sequence. Done well, this saves them a ton of work. They don't want you doing their work, but they do want you to do yours, and this includes writing a filmable scene in which actions and behaviors are clearly articulated. A director may choose not to use your design, but usually only when they see a better way when on the set, which often happens. If you are describing action, movement and behavior as it unfolds temporally on the screen, you'll have to do some design to ensure that it can indeed be performed and filmed. You'll have to think about that and reflect what you think in your writing. The last thing you want is a scene that's devoid of any consideration of choreography or staging, <<<
I think this is a potential defect of the B7 style, the lack of choreographing of action sequences. And perhaps it is because nobody - not writer, director or actor, is taking sufficient responsibility to define it.
Here's another comment, from a different email.
a play, whether written for exhibition on the bigscreen, television, or
the stage, must possess some theatrical qualities. Many scripts I evaluate lack theatrical qualities, which degrades their overall value and effect. In many ways, the frame of the film is like the opening of a proscenium stage. For example, in theater, entrances and exits are important to scene beginnings and endings, and are often used to signal a beginning or an ending. Yet I see scripts all the time that end on the last word of the last speech, with no indication of what happens thereafter. In most cases, this is mistaken; few scenes end on the last word of dialogue, there's almost always something that occurs after the last word has been spoken -- a character reacts with a look, a character exits, two characters embrace, and so on.<<<
Whereas here, I think he is talking about a virtue which B7 does have in abundance, a marked theatric quality, with (often) good scene resolution.
I'm sorry this is a long post, but I thought this might be of interest to some people
Alison
********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: Alison Page alison_page@becta.org.uk
The input of actors is also
important of course, particularly in the B7 world, which changed so much under so many influences, over the four seasons.
It is my feeling that the British tradition emphasises dialogue much more, coming as it does on a strong and high status theatrical tradition. This
has
changed quite a bit over the past thirty years, with greater emphasis nowadays on telling a story through visual cues as well as dialogue (cf 'Trainspotting') , but obviously B7 comes well before this time.
Cinema, though, is very different to television. Television is taped theatre, and emphasises the writer, whereas cinema concentrates on the visual, and as such emphasises the director (just think about the origins of each of them: early film had to rely exclusively on the visual and the odd title-card to get its message across, whereas early television went out live on a single soundstage). If you watch early television programmes from the 1950s, this is particularly evident-- while the filmed versions of the Quatermass stories are conventional horror films, the televised versions are staged, blocked and even filmed more or less as if someone had put two cameras in front of a stage.
In many ways, modern television programmes seem to be trying to be more like cinema films, and as such to place more emphasis on the director than on the writer. This unfortunately makes for poor television in three regards; firstly because it fails to play to the real strengths of the medium, secondly because a programme lacks the budget of a film, and finally because most television directors are, unfortunately, mediocre.
An American script editor I was talking to (by email) yesterday, said to
me
that he felt the British tradition was as he put it 'proscenium oriented', which has advantages and disadvantages. I think the advantages are that
the
strong emphasis on dialogue forces strong characterization, and a drive towards wit. On the other hand (as we can see in B7) it may damage the credibility of the action sequences, as insufficient thought is given to developing them.
I think you also have to add budgeting constraints to the reasons for the lack of action sequences-- you can't show a deep-space battle when you can't afford to :).
I think this is a potential defect of the B7 style, the lack of choreographing of action sequences. And perhaps it is because nobody - not writer, director or actor, is taking sufficient responsibility to define
it.
If you watch B7 though, you will notice that the fight choreography is much better on the filmed sequences than in the studio ones. There are four reasons for this: firstly, a studio is a much tighter space, and full of things like cables and sets which you have to be careful of, whereas on a beach you can more or less do what you like. Secondly, when filming in the studio one's generally on a tight schedule and consequently not going to be so concerned with getting the fight perfect, but on location you're more likely to want to do a good job, cos it's on film and you've just spent lots of money on the location. Thirdly, stuntmen cost money, and so aren't likely to be hired unless you have a very good reason, e.g. the death of a main character, but directors are more likely to go all-out for a filmed sequence. Fourthly, actors aren't stuntmen; you do get some, like Brian Croucher, who are comfortable with action sequences, but on the whole they don't really know what they're doing :).
I'm sorry this is a long post, but I thought this might be of interest to some people
Yes, it was :). Thanks!
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Filmed in 16mm at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Interesting stuff, this. I find it fascinating how the medium influences the final production in ways that I wouldn't have guessed.
I would say, though, that the only difference between TV and cinema as a *medium* come from the different aspect ratios. There are many culture differences due to the early days (standalone/silent/permanent versus serial/vocal/live/transient [Fiona/Neil]), but as Tavia points out, these culture differences can be avoided.
Instead, I suspect that the differences now are down to the relative industries. The B7 fights look bad not because they weren't given sufficient importance, but because the actors are involved. I was surprised to discover how little support Pruitt and Crawford got for the Buffy fights, but because they're arranged and filmed by professionals first, with a couple of flashes of the actors added later, it all looks much better. As Fiona says, if the budget doesn't stretch to hiring those professionals, then it won't look as convincing.
Production values vary, sometimes with surprising results. On Xena, for example, they don't shoot a scene with multiple cameras. They shoot it several times, moving the camera each time. They do this because they have to move the lighting anyway, to make the other POVs look ok. If you don't have the budget to do all that, you have to compromise on the lighting.
Tavia mentioned reselling productions to other countries. Fine, if you can do it. Neverwhere was shot on video, to save money, but consequently had (according to Gaiman) was far less saleable as a result.
Then there's how the script gets affected. JMS advises having as few people in each scene as possible, because the more people in a scene, the more people to screw up the take. Gerald Kelsey recalls writing a script which had a character who was both chauffeur and gardener, because it would be cheaper to have only the one actor. It wasn't, because the same actor who have had to be retained for longer, so the two roles were split between two actors. In another script, he had two principle characters on bicycles, with dialogue. The second-unit director shot two other actors from afar, and had the real actors add a voice-over, because that was cheaper. And, happily, gives a wide, sweeping shot, too. :-)
steve
-
Alison Page -
Fiona Moore -
Steve Kilbane