Microcinema Flashback - Defining Your Style (2001)

In the early phases of the microcinema revolution there were a lot of film makers who made films for the sole purpose of making them, but with no other artistic goal. I would be hard pressed to find the difference between one filmmaker and the next because most of them simply plopped their camera on a tripod and started shooting.

So, in November of 2001, I try to inspire new film makers to try not only to tell a story, but to tell an artistic one as well.

*****

Defining Your Style
By Pete Bauer

For any new low to no-budget filmmaker, I think there is an important question that should be asked. What makes me so special? What I mean by that is, why should anyone watch your stories? I am a firm believer that humans are storytellers by nature. We love to hear stories, make up stories, and watch stories. We see stories in paintings, in poems, in music and in sculpture. We listen to stories in gossip, in sharing memories and in relaying our hopes and goals. And filmmakers feel the instinctual urge to tell their stories with moving pictures. But, the question we should all be asking ourselves is what is going to make the way we convey our stories that much more unique and effective than the other wanna-be filmmakers out there?

This is something that I think most starting filmmakers often neglect to define within themselves. Part of this is understandable. We usually spend the early part of our "careers" learning the skills necessary by copying filmmakers we admire. We make our own personal versions of Scream or Star Wars or Indiana Jones. But, once we've grasped the basics, we should start trying to define who we are as filmmakers, how we tell stories, how we are to effect the audience, because, in the end, our primary goal as a story teller is to illicit emotion from our audience. Failing to do so means our attempt was unsuccessful at the most basic level for nothing screams failure louder to a filmmaker than a passive audience member.

Filmmakers have a seemingly infinite variety of ways to affect the audience. Some filmmakers choose a tense, realistic subject matter to illicit emotion. They'll convey stories of abuse, or drugs, or poverty or family crisis. Others choose a more fantastical way to illicit emotion, through horror or gore or science fiction. Some combine a little of all of these in thrillers and conspiracies and deception. We pick a genre that fits our strengths and our tastes and pursue making the most effective story possible. But, again, we should be asking ourselves, what makes me so special? Out of all of the low budget horror films out there, what will make mine stand out, what will make my story my own personal contribution to the genre. There are many horror directors out there, but only a few Cravens or Carpenters. There are many thriller directors out there, but only a few Hitchcocks or DePalmas.

When people think of Hitchcock or DePalma or Carpenter, the term "genius" is often attached in some fashion. But, are they a "genius" because they were born with an extra filmmaker gene or are they a "genius" because they have truly defined themselves as storytellers? And is this definition by accident, by some deep-seeded instinct, or is it, rather, because they are that much more thorough in creating their visual imagery? I think their "genius" comes from 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Hitchcock, for example, never just "filmed" the scene. Every single shot was evaluated for it's emotional impact, either on its own or how it fit within a scene. Nothing was shot just to get the shot. Every angle was chosen as part of a whole to create the maximum impact to the audience. In Dial M For Murder, for example, the scene where Grace Kelly is attacked is divided into three 30 second sections. Pre-Attack, Attack and Post-Attack. Each section is 30 seconds long, because Hitchcock wanted the audience to understand that the attack was it's own event within the entire story. Just like the overall film, he wanted the attack to have a beginning, middle and end. And he wanted it defined in 30 second segments so that the audience, on a subconscious level, would understand that this unique, important event, had it's own life.

How many of us think to that detail in order to create the maximum effect on the audience? Granted, that's a daunting task, but it's worth it if you want to be anything above ordinary. I don't think it's by coincidence that the more effective filmmakers are also storyboarders. Hitchcock, DePalma, Spielberg, the Coens, etc., they all storyboard and take the time, before hand, to define every shot, to make sure that the way that image is relayed on the screen is as potent as possible.

So, when your throwing together your next low to no-budget film, make sure you take the time to define your style, to determine what's going to make you so special? Will it be your story or your effects, your imagery or your characters? It can be anything, but make it stand out. Make sure that, when people hear about your next film, that they are immediately aware of the unique opportunity they have to view your work. The budget has many limitations, but it shouldn't impact your style. Each of us is a unique creature. Our job is to relay that individuality through moving pictures.

And, then, we will have our own cinematic voice, our own unique, defined style.