In this article from January, 2001 I talk about how using an audience's imagination can be far more powerful than showing an image onscreen.
*****
Exploding Heads and Bare Naughty Bits
By Pete Bauer
The primary goal of filmmakers is to evoke emotion from their audience. Those directors who've admitted as much and tailored their films to maximize audience reaction (Hitchcock, Spielberg, etc.) have often been criticized for being so effective at it! As if it were some sort of flaw to actually make an audience cry when they were supposed to. Somehow, because they were able to effect every audience member (not just the illustrious critics), their work has sometimes been disregarded as "popcorn" or "light-weight." It seems that, only after they're dead or they make a dark film are they actually applauded for their talents.
Directors can use a variety of ways to evoke audience reaction. Depending on the subject matter, directors can use shock (exploding heads) or sexuality (bare naughty bits). In my opinion, however, the most talented directors use neither. The most effective directors use the audience's own imagination. Of course, this depends on what type of genre you're shooting. If you're shooting a horror flick, splashing a little blood or creatively exercising some digits from the body may fit the bill. The most powerful true horror films utilize the audience's imagination more than special effects.
Halloween, for example, was so effective because there wasn't that much blood, just that scary shadow across the street, seemingly staring at you. And sometimes, exploding heads is just what you need. I mean,
Saving Private Ryan was brutally violent, but it was World War II, after all. The violence had a reason. But, sex and violence are used best when they are trying to create a cinematic atmosphere, not as gimmicks. If there isn't a real reason for it, then utilizing the audience's imagination is the best course.
I believe that, in most instances, the weakest choice a director can make is to show a naked breast or show someone getting killed. The most erotic scene for me was in
The Last Emperor where the Emperor makes love to his two wives. They move and twist and moan and turn, all completely covered under silk sheets. You only see unrecognizable movement and hear pleasure, but you imagine what's going on under there and that is what makes it so effective. Sure, the director could have chosen to shoot it like any number of bad late-night Cinemax sex/caper flicks, but the director chose a subtle way to portray the scene with maximum impact. If you show it to me, I react to it. If I imagine it, I help create it and truly feel it with you. The latter is always much more powerful.
And I guess that's what the great directors do… there is not one shot in their films that is not there for a specific reason. If the shot is a long shot of two people talking, it's for a reason. If it's a CU of hands fidgeting at a table, it's for a reason. And the great directors' reasons are beyond just setting the camera up to get it shot. Each shot is there in part or in whole to make the audience feel something. Hitchcock, for example, decided in
Dial M For Murder that the scene where Grace Kelly gets attacked needed to be a separate "event" in the film. He wanted a beginning, middle and end to the scene that the audience, whether consciously or not, would know that the violence was over. So, he structured each part of the scene to last 30 seconds. The part where Grace Kelly answers the phone is 30 seconds, the part where she is attacked is 30 seconds, the part where she recovers from the attack is 30 seconds. He did the same thing in Psycho with the shower scene, except each part of the attack was 40 seconds in length. How many of us take that much time to determine how best to tell each scene? It's daunting!
It amazes me how many films on cable simply relay the story instead of telling the story. They have the standard long shot, medium shot, close up for every scene. They move the camera in on the main actor once or twice a scene, if that, and then go onto the next scene. The camera remains usually stationary and at eye level. It's like I'm stuck watching the graduate projects from the "TV Movie of the Week" film school. As directors, we all look at the pages of a script. They're basically generic. There's some explanation of events, but the actual scene is created by how the director puts each shot together. I know, especially in amateur filmland, that, due to time, resources or other limitations, sometimes the only thing we can do is set up the camera, get the shot and then get the hell out of there. But, if we do that more than not, we're doing ourselves a disservice.
We have a great opportunity to experiment as amateur filmmakers. Actually, there is no better time to experiment because no one is breathing over your neck waiting to see if your vision is going to give them a return on their investment. I hope that every time someone plops in one of our flicks into the VCR, that we are able to move them, in some way. That we're able to engage their imagination and make them an active participant in the film-watching experience. That we make them laugh when they're supposed to laugh, cry when they're supposed to cry and cringe when they're supposed to cringe. Then our accomplishment moves beyond the fact that we got the project done... but that we got it done well. And then, maybe one day, we all will be called "pop-corn" directors. Then we'll know we're doing it right!
Posts
