It is considered that the script is one of the genres of literature. That’s not so. He has nothing to do with literature and can not have.
If we want the script to be closer to the film, we write it as it will be shot, that is, we write down in words what we would like to see on the screen. It will be typical impassable scenario, for such a record absolutely not literary. But as it is necessary to approve the scenario, usually it write down so that it was clear to all. This means that it is usually written the scenario is very far from the cinematic incarnation, because the film itself is not adequate to the image the literary. Paraphrasing a well-known proverb, we can formulate this situation as follows: film — this is one time to see, and the script is ten times to hear.
It is impossible to write down a cinematic image with words. This is the description of the music through the painting or description of the music paintings. In short, the thing absolutely impossible.
This scenario should not claim to be a complete literary work. It should initially be conceived as a future film. In my opinion, the more accurately written the script, the worse the picture. Usually such a scenario is called “strong”, the characters in it necessarily “turn”, everything “moves”, etc. At the heart of it is typically commercial enterprise. Another thing is the author’s cinema. It is impossible to present the concept in literary language, because the film will still be different. It will be necessary to look for equivalent. Ideally the script should be written by the Director of the film. This movie is conceived from beginning to end. The whole scenario of Godard’s painting “Live your life” fit on one page, where it was recorded sequence of episodes. And that’s all. No text. The authors said what was appropriate.
Or, for example, another film — “Shadows” Cassavetes, a unique picture. This is improvisation in the literal sense. The dramaturgy of the film arose as a result of the filmed episodes, and not Vice versa.
Here, each step in the development of action is anti-systemic. The original scheme was destroyed by the properties of the material itself. So, no drama (in the traditional sense), and all “standing.” Everything is mounted, because all the frames are of the same breed.
However, this does not mean that you can go outside with a camera and make a movie. Hardly. It will take years. The script is necessary to remember the idea, the starting point. In this sense, the scenario is a great thing, but when it is, I repeat, the idea, nothing more.
I do not imagine how you can shoot a picture on someone else’s script. If the Director shoots a picture, completely accepting someone else’s script, then he inevitably becomes an Illustrator.
If the screenwriter offers something new, he already acts as the Director. However, most often the writer is forced to work at an average level. Therefore, an ideal case for conceive and write with the Director.
I will try to explain in some detail my thoughts on the script and the concept of “screenwriter”. Yes forgive me professionals-writers, but, in my opinion, no at all there are no writers. It has to be either writers who perfectly understand that such cinema, or Directors who organize literary material. For, as I said, such a genre in literature, as scenario, not there is.
In General, there is always a dilemma. For example, the Director, creating a script, will record as actions, episodes, only what he imagines in the form of a specific piece time, which he then will fix on film. From the point of view of literature, these scripts will appear in the highest degree obscure, ridiculous and inaccessible, I’m not talking to reading, but also for editing.
On the other hand, if a writer tries to Express his original intention in a literary way, as a writer, he does not create a script. He creates a literary work. Say, the story is placed on seventy pages of typewritten text. If it will make the entry on the future of film, the so-called installation record, then he should just go to camera and shoot this movie, because no one like him can not imagine this film, and no Director will not be able to shoot better. Because it will be a plan brought almost to the end.
It remains only to remove it, that is, to implement.
So, if the script is very good and cinematic, the Director, carrying it out, nothing to do with it. If the script is a literary work, the future Director.
I’ll have to do it all over again.
When the Director gets his hands on the script and begins to work on it, it always turns out that the script, no matter how deep in design and accurate in its purpose, inevitably begins to change in something. He never gets a literal, literal, mirror image on the screen. There are always certain deformations. Therefore, the work screenwriter with the Director, generally struggle and compromise. It is possible that it can get a full movie and when in the process of the screenwriter and Director break and crumble their original intentions, and on their ruins there is a new conception, a new organism.
But still the most normal version of the author’s work on the film should be considered the case when the idea is not broken, not deformed, and develops organically, namely, when the Director of the film wrote the script for himself, or another — the author of the script himself began to write the film.
Therefore, I think it is absolutely impossible in the end to separate these two professions — directing and screenwriting. The original script can only be created by the Director, or however, it can arise as a result of the ideal cooperation of the Director and the writer.
However, the writer in the writer can not turn. He can expand his professional range, although the long stay of the writer in this capacity seems to me unfruitful.
In short, I believe that only a good writer can be a good writer for a Director. Because before the screenwriter there are the tasks demanding the present writer’s gift. I
I’m talking about psychological problems. Here is already carried out a really useful, really necessary influence of literature on the cinema, does not infringe and does not distort it specifics. Now there is nothing more neglected and superficial in cinema than psychology. I’m talking about understanding and revealing the deep truth of those States in which there is character. The cinema demands from both the Director and the screenwriter enormous knowledge about the person and scrupulous accuracy of this knowledge in each separate case, and in this sense the author of the film has to to be related not only to a specialist psychologist, but also to a specialist psychiatrist. Because plastic cinema in a huge, often decisive degree depends on the specific state human nature in specific circumstances. And his knowledge of the full truth about it’s internal state, the writer may have a lot to give to the Director. That’s why the writer must be a real writer.
As for the transformation of the screenwriter into the Director, you can’t be surprised. There are plenty of examples of, say, largely “new wave”, or, more, Italian neo-realism. He’s almost all out of former critics, writers. This is natural. Therefore, all well-known Directors, as a rule, write scripts themselves or in co-authorship with writer.
In General, to be honest, writing the script and the so-called discussion of it on various editorial boards — quite old-fashioned and in some ways even reactionary thing. Someday movies from this refuses. Because it is impossible to control the picture according to the scenario, it is simply clearly visible. A huge number of movies are launched with the hope that it will be a good movie, however all of them fail, and paintings, in scenarios which no one believed, suddenly become masterpieces. Very often. In short, there is no logic. If someone thinks, that on scenario can be to judge what will be the film, in this he was, I can assure you, is deeply mistaken.
However, unfortunately, there is a producer in the West who needs to know what he is investing in, and we have a state cinema, which also needs to know where the state is spending money. Although this self-deception. And already proven repeatedly. On both sides. And we’re deceiving ourselves, and the people who try to edit us are deceiving themselves, too.
Apparently, as long as there is a producer in the form of some rich person or in the form of a state body, we will need such a profession as the stage Rist.
As for the Association of Director and writer, it is also a very difficult problem. The fact is that the better the writer, the more impossible it is for the production. Sufficiently
recall the works of Andrei Bitov or Grant Matevosyan to understand what I’m talking about. Therefore, it is very important for the Director and writer community that the writer understands that the film production cannot be an illustration of a literary work, it will inevitably be a creation of artistic imagery alien to literature. And the very literary the work in this case will be only the material in the hands of the Director, a kind of impulse to create an original imaginative world. In my practice, I was faced with a misunderstanding of this regularities on the part of writers such as V. Bogomolov. They believed that even the word can not be changed in their works. So the lack of understanding of the specifics of the movie is quite common misconception. On the other hand, my cooperation with Strugatsky was quite fruitful. In short, not every good writer can be a screenwriter in for the reasons I have already mentioned. And this is not a flaw or a virtue of the writer. Just the specificity of the literary image and cinematic is different.
What is the plot in the script? Obviously, there can be no one-sided answer to this question. Let us recall at least the films of Godard and Cassavetes already cited as an example. So I will focus on the understanding of the plot, which seems to me at the moment the most acceptable, that is, reflecting my ideas about the scenario. In light of my current for me it is very important that the plot of the script meets the requirements of the unity of time, place and action on the principle of the possibilities and features of cinema as an art classicists’. I used to find it interesting as much as possible to use the comprehensive capabilities to mount a row chronicle as well as other temporal layers, dreams, confusion events, tting actors in front of unexpected challenges and questions. Now I want to send between mounting gluing no time gap. I want time, its fluidity they were detected and existed inside the frame, and mounting gluing would mean the continuation of the action and nothing more, so that it does not carry with it a temporary failure, does not perform the function of selection and the dramatic organization of time.
It seems to me that such a formal solution, as simple and ascetic as possible, gives great opportunities.
Let us now turn to the problem of dialogue.
It is impossible to concentrate the meaning of the scene in the words expressed by the characters. “Words, words, in real life this most often only water, and only rarely and on a brief time you can to watch the full coincidence of word and gesture, word and deed, word and meaning. Usually the word, inner state and physical action of a person develop in different planes. They interact, sometimes slightly echo each other, often contradict, and sometimes, sharply colliding, expose each other. And only with the exact knowledge of what is happening and why at the same time, in each of these “planes”, only with full knowledge of this can we achieve the truth, the uniqueness of the fact. Only from the exact correlation of the action with the spoken in short, from their rasonabe born that way, which I call image specific.
In literature, in theatrical drama, dialogue is an expression of the concept (not necessarily always, but most often). In movies through dialogue, too, can be Express thought, after all in life it happens. But in the movie, another principle of dialogue. The Director must constantly be a witness to what is happening in front of the camera. Speech in movies can generally be used as noise, as background, etc. Not to mention that there are very good pictures where there is no dialogue at all.
In movies, characters don’t say what they do. That’s good. Therefore, dialogue is not at all what is in prose. If in the theatre of possible “character-idea”, for the movie, he is clearly unacceptable. Even in prose character is different in a story, novel or, say, story.
In short, the function of the character, nature and accordingly the dialogue in the movie is quite different than in literature, theater, prose, that is in other types of art.
What is character in the movies? As a rule, this is something, unfortunately, very conditional, approximate, not complete enough in relation to life. Although this program has been repeatedly put in movies and even sometimes solved quite successfully.
Take, for example, the film “Chapaev”. This picture, in my opinion, is strange, since the material itself is benign, and it is visible, but mounted ugly. It feels like the material was not shot for such installation. It’s a dotted line, not a picture.
Butterfly in something convincing and poetic, but not enough to build these qualities. As a result, his character is didactic. Everything is so primitive, including the pattern itself, that there is a feeling that before you some scraps of a picture. Perhaps the authors did not want what happened in the final version.
In the movie “the President” you can trace this principle in the construction of character, that is, a scheme based on the thesis: “character, as every one of us.” However, there are other principles of nature. Let’s remember at least “Umberto D.” directed by De sica.
Each time, faced with the schematic nature of the film, involuntarily imagine a certain author who sits and thinks how to tell this story more attractive, it is more interesting, you feel terrible efforts directed to interest the viewer at all costs. At its core it is a fundamental principle of commercial cinema. Into it the main spring is the spectacle, not the living charm of the image, which is replaced by a scheme consisting of a list of some plausibility. So, say, in order to make a positive the hero of “alive”, certainly it is necessary at first to show him in some way repulsive, unsympathetic, etc. etc.
When we are dealing with a genuine work of art, a masterpiece, we are dealing with a “thing in itself”, with an image as incomprehensible as life itself. As soon as we talk about receptions, how to, how making work “fun”, so inevitably find themselves within the commercial counterfeits of life.
Real art does not care what impression it will make on the viewer.
Sometimes you can hear such a reproach: the film, they say, has nothing to do with life. I don’t understand that at all. This is, forgive me, nonsense. For man lives within the events of his time, he thought — a fact of current reality. “Have nothing to do with life,” the Martian might say.
It is obvious that any art is engaged in the person even if some painter writes only still lifes.
You can often hear such statements that it is not enough, they say, we still raise problems related to one or another topic: the theme of agriculture, the theme of the working class, Soviet intellectuals or any other topic.
In my opinion, it is impossible to raise this question. Planning of cinematic art link with some topic hopeless in terms of getting a good result.
It seems to me that cinema, like any art, has always meant a person, first of all a person, with its content and purpose. And not the need to learn a particular topic.
I would like to recall a remarkable statement, well-known and common, but one that we often forget. Engels said that “the more the author’s views are hidden, the better for work of art.»
What’s the meaning of that? In my understanding, this means that we are not talking about the absence of tendentiousness — any work of art is tendentious – and we are talking about the need to hide so deep is the idea, the concept of copyright to the product purchased alive, human, shaped, artistic sense, which is dominated by image masking semantic thesis.
We are talking about the fact that the author’s views are expressed in a complex, are the result of very serious thoughts, experiences and their design. It should be remembered that the artist thinks in images and the only way to demonstrate their attitude to life.
Art deals only with a person and can not do anything else, and therefore can not go beyond the human view, can not, so to speak, look at a person from another hand, with hand “inhuman.” I faced it twice in the practice. In “Solaris” I thought it necessary to direct one scene of inhuman eyes, refusing traditional human perception. I mean the scene of Hari’s suicide attempt and her gradual regeneration. However, nothing came of it. It turned out simply you can’t do that. For any stylization and imitation is fraught with the fact that it will not be an image, but only some system of logical proof. However, as I said, there are different regularities in the construction of character in literature, poetry, or, say, what makes Shakespeare in his dramas, it would be impossible to do in literature, because in classical dramaturgy as characters are the whole philosophical systems, concepts. For example, hamlet or Macbeth. It’s not characters, not types: it’s a concept, a point of view that is impossible nor in literature, nor in poetry, so as will look terribly schematic. This applies not only to Shakespeare’s drama, but also to Ostrovsky, Ben Johnson, Pirandello. However, it is the most natural form of existence of human content.
Try on this principle, that is, without having characters, to write a literary work, and you will understand that it is impossible.
To be honest, I don’t know a single novel, whether medieval or modern, which is not based on human character.
But if in cinema we begin to develop the human character in a literary way, then, as a rule, nothing comes out of it. I am referring to the point of view that movies should be treated as a kind of novel. In my opinion, this is absolutely wrong, because this is a pure attempt to transfer the literary principles of human creation images in cinema. It will be literature recorded on film.
If we are going to attempt to transfer movie how to develop characters, typical of traditional theatre, then again it did not work. Everything will be terribly false, schematic.
Therefore, the movie must be some kind of a way of expression of thoughts. This does not mean that all Directors should work the same way. It just means that the cinema has its own material, in which the or the other the Director will work in its own way.
Such material, as I said, is time.
Notice, as soon as the Director touches other types of art, including them in the figurative system, so there comes some pause, a certain dead zone, the picture ceases to live, because these alien inclusions destroy the integrity of the work. By the way, as a rule, become old-fashioned, do not stand the test of time those pictures or places in the picture, the shape of which is not it is specific to cinema, and appears as a taken away, usurped form belonging to other genres of art.
Very often in arguments about the screenwriting you can hear talk about “action” as the basic principle.
Everyone’s talking about action. What is it? It is a form of existence of objects and the real world in time. That’s all, nothing more. And not a detective story, which, as skewer, permeate all the episodes, ensuring the success of the enterprise. It’s all Convention. All of this theater, in principle.
We pay little attention to life, we are inattentive and careless to life, which is the cause of art, we are engaged in creativity in the offices on the principle of Jules Verne. Sprung some huge number of cliches, some conventional language, Esperanto. What we do is we tell some stories, isterimki the old language, is not peculiar to ourselves, we repeat each other and can not give anything to anyone. Well, it can attract a certain audience, rent on it can earn. But in principle the film should be essentially seriously not touch.
I was told a case that happened to one person during the war. One person was shot for cowardice or betrayal, I do not remember. This man and a few other people with it was about a former elementary school ly. It was spring, the snow in some places has not melted away, puddles around. They were standing against the wall. Before they were shot, they were ordered to undress, remove overcoats and boots. Because it was hard with the outfit and all. All removed, and one of them took off his overcoat, neatly folded, thinking about something else, probably, and began to walk with the goal put an overcoat on su Hoi place. And there were puddles all around, just nowhere to put it. He’s not used to putting it in the water. This man in a few minutes was lying in the form of a corpse against the wall, and no overcoat was not needed for him. But he acted automatically, out of habit, because his thoughts were far ahead of death. And that was how he felt. It seems to me extremely expressive.
Ultimately in the movie always affects accuracy. By the way, recently appeared in the film the very talented Alexei German from Leningrad, which is made of paper. Lal, in my opinion, very interesting film “Twenty days without war”. In this picture, despite the lack of integrity, there are quite striking pieces that say that before us, of course, the filmmaker. I would name a dozen illustrious masters who are no match for him, despite the fact that he still does not know how much. And even not so much he,
how many his screenwriter.
There are amazing places in this picture. For example, EPI zod — meeting at the factory in Tashkent. Well, I don’t know, it’s such a class episode, at such a level made that it’s just amazing how this all could be born a person who never even saw the war. It’s not about whether he knows the war or not, but what he feels and how he develops it.
Well, if you looked at the work of Sergei Parajanov, both, especially the second, then all three paintings by Otar Ioseliani. These are all people who dig very deeply because they understand, what is cinema. And you will not deny that they are all completely different from each other. On the contrary, the complete opposite in the manner, subject, in all.
To create a full-fledged cinematography, it is necessary to know closely the form of musical works: fugues, sonatas, symphonies, etc., because the film as a form is closest to the musical structure material’s. Important here is not the logic flow of events and the flow of these developments, the form of their existence in the film. It’s different. already form.
In the General form of a film production, the end is very important, as is the code in a musical work.
With this understanding of the form does not matter the sequence of episodes, characters, events, important logic of musical laws: theme, antithema, development, etc. In the picture “Mirror” in the much of this principle of organization of the material is used.
Basically screenwriting closest to musical form in the development of the material, which is important, not logic, and transformation of feelings and emotions. It is possible to cause emotion only by violation logical sequence. This will be a screenplay, that is, the game sequence, but not the sequence itself. We need to look not for logic, not history, but for the development of feelings. Not accidentally Chekhov, writing a story, threw away the first page, that is, removed all “because”, removed the motivation. Only when the material is freed from “common sense” is born a living feeling in its natural development and transformations. It has long been tested — the better the material of the captured picture, the sooner it breaks the original drama.
Authentic artistic image is not a rational explanation, and the sensory characteristics that are not amenable to unambiguous decoding. That’s why analogichnye, music laws construction of the material is much more accurate and artistic than the notorious common sense. In General, this is an attempt to create an equation between infinite-in a way.
The work must be able to cause shock, catharsis. It must be able to touch the living suffering of man. The purpose of art is not to teach how to live (unless Leonardo teaches his Madonna or its “Trinity”). Art never solved problems, it posed them. Art alters a person, makes him ready for the perception of good, releases spiritual energy.
This is its high purpose.