Storyboarding
Alfred Hitchcock was apparently an “avid user” of storyboards. However not all directors use them. Some Directors who are specifically mentioned as not storyboarding are Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood and David Cronenberg. Directors Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg storyboard some films/scenes in films, but not others, despite Spielberg being on record as being a fan of storyboarding.
On Quora, I found the following question:
“What are some examples of film directors who don’t use storyboards?”
Here are a couple of the answers that I found interesting and relevant, and I discuss them below.
This makes sense to me. I can see that complex projects or scenes could often benefit from storyboarding. However, I also agree with the comment “there are many films that are not particularly demanding on this level, and it would be counterproductive to board most scenes that are more actor driven than design driven.” With the scale of projects that I am currently working on, I personally feel more comfortable “keeping an open mind,” about certain shots.
I find it interesting that both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino are dyslexic like me, and I wonder if that has anything to do with them both not always storyboarding. A lot of people are not clear on what dyslexia actually is, often assuming that it is just about reading and writing. It is way more than that and is more a case of being “wired differently” and thus viewing the world slightly differently, often, as far as I can see, to great advantage in the creative industries. I certainly like the advantage of being able to visualise moving images in my brain, like mini films. I discuss that in various places elsewhere in this FMP. In terms of strategies for handing the more challenging aspects to dyslexia, one big misunderstanding is thinking that what works for one dyslexic will work for all.
For example, you might think that visual pictures, like in a storyboard, are perfect for dyslexics. However, they do not work for me. Last year, in my Year 1 FMP, I did a great deal of research into dyslexia, and into understanding how I learn and take in information best. Because my Year 1 FMP was based on movement – camera movement – I was finding out lots of information about the effect of movement on the human brain. I realised that I learn best not with still images but with moving images, especially when words are involved. This is one of the reasons why I use YouTube for much of my research. I can read, but it takes me longer than non-dyslexics, and is more hard work. I am in good company in my chosen career direction of eventually becoming a Fiction Film/TV show director since many directors are dyslexic like Spielberg.
Regarding Spielberg, “He says that it takes him twice as long as anyone else to read a book or script, but he uses the extra time to look for things to appreciate as he lingers over the words.”
This makes perfect sense to me. I love that no-one could argue that dyslexia has held Spielberg back from becoming successful. Although money is certainly not the only measure of success, Steven Spielberg is currently the world’s highest grossing director over all his films, which isn’t bad.
So I prefer moving images to the still ones in a storyboard.
This seems like good advice to me, to see what works best for you and your crew. So far, I have not found storyboards work for me, and they are not yet of any help to me. Last year, when I asked Tom (tutor) if we had to do a storyboard, he said not if we could justify why not. Which is what I am doing here.
Another interesting question was
“Why do most film directors use previs instead of storyboards?”
I think that, if I eventually get to the position of Fiction Film/TV director, then previs is something that appeals to me. I found the following explanation of previs:
“Previsualisation (previs) artists help to plan out what a film is going to look like. Previs is the process of visualising a scene before creating it. Previs generally takes the form of a 3D animatics, namely a rough version of a scene or scenes.“
This is a bit like I do test filming, to see how certain more complicated shots that I have in my mind will turn out in reality. I did 2 days of test filming for this Year 2 FMP and I found them far more useful that I personally would have found a storyboard.
I am hopeful that previs will continue to develop and I am excited to see how it evolves over the next years and when I enter the Industry.
On Indie Talk, I found the following comments relating to Christopher Nolan and Clint Eastwood.
Christopher Nolan:
Again, he is talking about using story boards to help him plan more complex scenes such as certain action scenes.
I do like to prepare a shot list, although I am finding that there are parts that I don’t want to feel that I am tying myself down to, I would rather be specific about certain shots, especially key shots that I need, but then work with my actor from the script for certain areas of dialogue. This is how I did my shot list for this Year 2 FMP film.
Yes! I like these comments. Christopher Nolan says “In my head I’ve always been able to visualize what I want mentally” which really resonates with me. That’s how I do it. It is great to see successful directors demonstrating that although some “methods” are pretty fixed in the Film Industry, others are more flexible.
Relating to Clint Eastwood:
Wow, that is a lot about what Clint Eastwood “won’t” do, including “won’t storyboard. He won’t produce a shot list”. But equally, he won’t change the script once it is done. It really shows there are lots of different ways to successfully make a film. However although he won’t change the script, he is still open to a certain amount of experimentation when filming, as the next example shows.
Steven Spielberg shot the first 25 minutes opening scene of Private Ryan (1998) without storyboards. It is a huge D-Day invasion scene and is regarded as one of the most realistic battle scenes ever shot. I have not seen the full film (it is on my post FMP list of films to watch) but the photos that I have seen of it are extremely gory. Spielberg said
“When I finished shooting on Omaha Beach, I looked back on the four weeks that it took to shoot these 25 minutes and realized I might have sealed the movie’s fate by creating a sequence of such intensity people may not want to see minute 26. I imagined massive walkouts. But I didn’t want to mute it or make excuses for it. The movie was made for the veterans, and if I had done it any other way it wouldn’t have been anything close to resembling what they survived.”
So, this was a movie that he really wanted to get right. But he didn’t storyboard it, or even have complicated shot lists. Apparently, his script for this part of the movie was only about 7 pages long and didn’t include many specific details.
Given what an important scene it was, and how important it was to him to get it right, I was curious why he didn’t storyboard it, since one reason that I have seen given for storyboarding is to make sure that you get a scene exactly as you want it to be.
His answer was
“I had to shoot this sequence one step at a time because that’s the way the Rangers took the beach: one inch at a time. As a result, I was able to make up this whole sequence as I went along,” says Spielberg. “I don’t mean the whole history or the narrative of what happened on June 6, 1944, but literally to come up with shots on the spur of the moment and not a month ahead of time. It helped make things a little more chaotic and unpredictable.”
This makes sense to me, because I also love the freedom that coming up with shots on the day gives me.
However, I can also see from my research that it is not only the director who uses a finished storyboard, and I can see that a storyboard can be a good way to get your ideas across to multiple peoples, especially without needing to be there yourself explaining it, for example to other departments like lighting, location scouting, costume and props. Or if you are working on an advert, for example, then a storyboard can be an effective way to show your vision to your client.
For example, in this advert, the following part of the storyboard gives the client an idea of the finished advert.
Here is the finished advert, with number 13 above starting at about 55 seconds in:
If you look at number 14, you can also see that some post-production effects are going to be needed to show the change through the seasons. I can see that anywhere that there are special effects, visual effects, CGI, or stunts needed then it could be argued that a storyboard is useful for that. But I would think that any areas like that would already be identified and worked on separately any way, you don’t need a storyboard for that.
And also, although these storyboards above are beautifully drawn, many are just rough sketches, so would not have the same amount of useful information.
I can also see that they could identify in a visual way any areas that don’t have enough shot coverage, or where the order of shots is not as effective as it could be, for example if there are a lot of the same shot type in a row. But a shot list can show issues with order of shots too.
Spielberg also decided not to plan Schindler’s List (1993) with a storyboard. In this case, he said he wanted to shoot it like a documentary. So, there can be many reasons why a director chooses not to use a storyboard.
It also seems that many lower budget films do not use storyboards, since often the crew is very small, and the director often carries out many of the pre-planning roles that a storyboard would be helpful for, so they know it all anyway. I feel this is the situation with my Year 2 FMP film, which is an extremely low budget film.
My conclusion from my research here is that there are general reasons for and against storyboards, depending on the circumstances. There are also good reasons for and against depending on the particular film and/or scene. It also depends on the personal preferences of the director. It can also depend on the nature of a client. My intention is to work my way up the cinematography route from a trainee camera assistant type role, i.e. techie, as far as I can get to Cinematographer, then hopefully eventually Director. In all roles other than Director I appreciate storyboarding decisions will not be my decisions. But for any independent film I make myself then I will want to be directing it, so it will be my decision.
When I started my Year 1 FMP, one of my concerns is that I “cannot” draw, not even stick figures. My pen control isn’t as great as it could be, since due to my dyslexia I type far more than I use a pen or pencil, which generally works well, but hasn’t developed my drawing skills. As part of my Year 1 FMP, I investigated various alternate ways of creating a storyboard such as photographs, which also help to represent angles better. I found how to represent actor movement with arrows in one colour, camera movement with different colour arrows, and using 2 or more storyboard frames to help show movement. But I was, and still am, not convinced that I find them useful. I am happy that I know some ideas how to produce one if I had to. But it seems to me that part of the ethos of this UAL course is to teach you industry methods but also to allow you to learn what works best for you. And it is doing that.
This research has justified for me why my decision not to do a storyboard for this Year 2 FMP project is the correct one. One of many things I have learnt from my Runner time with director Damian Power earlier this year, is that when filming a project there really isn’t time or money to do things that are not helpful.
Going forward next year, I want to take all the various things I have learnt up till now regarding storyboarding and investigate even deeper whether it might be helpful to me in a certain format maybe. I want to find out more about previs, which sounds really helpful. And I want to really work out what works for me, what I can tweak to make work for me, and what really isn’t helpful, regarding storyboards.