Storyboard Q&A with Ted Mathot

I wanted to ask you about emphasis and intensity and how those
determine both the shot selection you use in a scene/seq. In your view
are these basically the same thing(emphasis.intensity)?

In my opinion emphasis and intensity are two very different things, and the shot
selection can vary widely between the two. Emphasis brings attention or focus to a
specific thing or situation in the shot/scene. Intensity is the level of emotional
reaction to that situation. If I wanted to emphasize a man lost in the desert, I would
go with a wide shot and shoot down on him to show he is small and the desert is
large-- If I wanted to emphasize someone lost in a labyrinth, I would go close and
tight as if the walls were closing in. If I wanted to increase the intensity for the man
lost in the desert, I may go close to see him sweaty and gasping for water, and shoot
up at him to show the sun beating down over his shoulder. If I wanted to increase
the intensity of the man lost in the labyrinth, I would stay close and tight also,
because it supports the situation.

Of course, none of this is set in stone; there is a great shot in The Shining where
Wendy and Danny are in the hedge maze. The camera is shooting straight down on
them and pulls way back to show they are surrounded by maze in every direction.
This is for emphasis because it shows the vastness of the maze compared to the
characters (and is also a story point, making it believable that Jack could get lost as
he does later in the movie).

Would you say that the tighter the shots get in a scene or the more an
angle is tilted or contrasted with lighting the more intense/emphasis
you gain and thus you have your turning point in a scene? Would you
say this is a general principle but not a rule for most scenes in a film?

It depends on the story. A tighter shot or a tilted camera is usually more intense, but
will only be effective in cases where it supports the story. Otherwise it feels
arbitrary, and if done too often can desensitize or disconnect a viewer. Quicker
editing or a handheld camera can increase the intensity as well, but again should
only be done to support the story. Rhythm, color, shape, line, space and movement
all work to raise or lower intensity. So I would say it is a general principle but not a
rule.

If you could talk about this and your process as far as tackling a seq/
scene/shots and how those shots are determined. are the shots based on
the intensity of the scene or the mood/feeling of the character? or are
these the same to you?(feeling/mood of character/intensity/emphasis
of scene).

Sequences/scenes are like mini movies -- they should (but don't always) have arcs
and visual progressions to them. Every scene in a film should: 1) Tell us something
about the character, or 2) Move the story forward. When I tackle a scene I think of it
in those terms. When I read the script, I ask myself ' What is the high point (climax)
of the scene?' because that's where I need to progress to visually. The shots should
support the story in the best way possible. The mood/feeling of the character will
most often determine the intensity but not always. It goes back to supporting the
story. The protagonist may be cool as a cucumber during a high speed chase, but
that doesn't mean the chase should be staged flat and unexciting. For example,
when Hannibal Lecter escapes from his cage in Silence of the Lambs, he is calm.
The shots are intense, but he is not. It is the contrast that makes the scene
interesting.

What are your opinions on spoon feeding the audience vs. giving them
enough credit to add 2 and 2 to make 4 - such as in Wall-E, where his
treads are old and worn, he looks at fresh treads on another Wall-E and
we cut to him moving along with new treads. Cutting out the whole,
taking his treads off, putting the new ones on etc. When and where do
you find that it is perhaps, almost important to spoon feed the audience,
if at all?

The audience should never be spoon fed anything. They have to be given the benefit
of the doubt that they will be able to put 2 and 2 together. The worst thing is to
underestimate an audience because it makes a weaker product. The thing I hate
most is the "Scooby Doo" moment in movies where one character explains to
another everything that has happened in the movie so far (there's a bit towards the
end of the second Matrix movie with The Architect that drives me batty in this
regard -- The last thing I wanted to see in the movie at that point is a talking head
that attempts to explain EVERYTHING. An eye roller of epic proportions. See it
here if you have 8 minutes to burn).

The Wall•E bit you mentioned is a little different; the cut was made to remove
what's called "shoe leather", unnecessary business that will slow down the film.
Good filmmakers and editors understand economic filmmaking and have the ability
to see things to cut that will speed up a film and make it better.

During my student film, after 4 months of story revising, I changed the

ending in the last couple weeks and decided to stick with it. Now, it
almost seems as though my original one was much better and that the
reason I changed it was due to the fact that just because it was *new* it
was better (not realizing that at the time). How do you catch yourself
from falling into this trap?

Trust your gut and try not to second guess yourself. A lot of the time, changes are
made to things when they don't need to be, and the end product isn't necessarily
better, just different. I find that when I'm boarding, gut instinct is often the best
way to go because it's an emotional response; it's an impulse that "feels" right.

Also, when working on a project, make sure that you aren't in total isolation; ask
your peers to look at and give notes on what you're doing; when you are with
something day in and day out for a long period of time, you can lose sight of what it
is because you're too close to it -- that's when the second guessing begins. Step back
and get some feedback from others, then you will know if you are headed in the
right direction.

What's your take on showing depth and perspective vs. straight on and
flat composition? I certainly like dynamic composition where the
camera's a bit lower and things aren't totally symmetrical, but
sometimes composing things right in the middle of the frame and at eye
level can be really powerful.

I'm still trying to figure out how these things interact. Any thoughts?
Four things to talk about here:
1. Deep space
2. Flat space
3. Symmetry
4. Asymmetry
Deep space is what's most familiar and common in movies, with flat space being
more of a stylistic and/or deliberate choice. Most directors by nature do not film
things in flat space or use symmetrical staging/composition. Many of you who read
this blog are familiar with the work of Wes Anderson, who uses almost exclusively
flat space staging (I have posted a number of screenshots from his films here) and
limited space staging (combinations of flat and deep space).

This is a stylistic choice because the majority of his films are shot this way. The
Royal Tenenbaums is told as if it were a storybook, thus the flat/limited space. Parts
of Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon were shot to represent the paintings of the time
and used zoom lenses (which are flat, since everything in the frame moves
proportionally to the camera lens) instead of push ins and pull outs. The Shining
uses deep space but has a lot of symmetry in its shots, a really interesting
combination of visual elements. Tenenbaums' shots often are the opposite, flat and
asymmetrical.

Deliberate usage of flat and/or symmetrical staging can be used as counterpoint or

for emphasis in a film that is predominantly deep or limited space.

The reverse is true as in the fight scene in Barry Lyndon -- the handheld moving
camera really creates a jarring feeling compared to the static camerawork that
surrounds it.