Going on Location

Talking writing here. Location is not simply what “frames the picture.”

As the scribe of your story, if you consider yourself its cinematographer or cameraman and the reader as projectionist, then location is your film stock. (Yeah, so it’s also your art department, but let’s stick to one analogy for now.) It provides the context against which everything else is staged. There’s a literal chemical reaction with the performance that’s burned into it.

Do you want something grainy? Vibrant? Black and white? High contrast? Fogged?

Determine what needs to happen in the scene, how the characters use each other for these needs, and then place the whole thing somewhere that provides its own set of additional obstacles. It’s all about heightening conflict. Write a shootout in a daycare center. A breakup in church. A homosexual’s outing during a KKK rally. You get the idea. Location amplifies tension. Enough talky diner scenes; if dialogue is all that’s on your characters’ menu, at least have them do it at a swingers party or in the back of an ambulance.

Location can become (and be written like) another character, be it unstable, comforting, evil, intoxicating—whatever. Make it breathe. This personification is known as pathetic fallacy, and lies in the details. Even a mundane setting like a bookstore can raise the stakes with some background quirks like the nauseating smell of overpriced coffee, talkative ghosts of dead authors, or an aisle full of sexual dysfunction books that mirror a character’s insecurities. Don’t beat the reader over the head with excess description, but let us know that it pervades the proceedings via a quick cutaway to the environment now and then. Anthropomorphize it; give it some human characteristics:

• The portraits eyeballed us along the lonely corridor, whispering for us to press onward.

• The bed swallowed her whole, while figurines danced on the nightstand and those glow-in-the-dark ceiling constellations mapped out her immediate future.

Especially in screenwriting, where you’re limited to visual and sonic descriptions (no feelings or inner monologue permitted), an effective technique is to use the external to reflect the internal. Emotionally. Sometimes it’s obvious, like an airplane experiencing turbulence while its passengers bicker, or an envious crush wearing a green dress. But it could also be a walk through an empty stadium by a struggling athlete, or a cold-feet bride who spots her parents arguing in the congregation.

If you don’t quite have a scene figured out yet, and need a little inspiration or solution-engineering, a dynamic location can help spur those ideas. A mausoleum, the drunk tank, a champagne room, the 6 train … fucked-up shit just happens there sometimes. Select the right film stock and your imagery will jump off the page.

Posted in writing | Tagged | 2 Comments

Open Up (Say “Ahh”)

Someone told me I should shoot all my video with the iris wide open, but I can’t remember why, and it doesn’t really make sense to me. Shed some light?

This person was probably assuming you were going for that much-hyped film look with your video.

Film looks the way it does for many reasons, but one of the main identifiers is depth of field, or lack of it, more accurately. That’s how much of the image is in acceptable focus from front to back. One giveaway that you’re shooting video is that most everything tends to be in focus, whereas film (because of the lenses beaming onto a relatively large negative compared to video’s tiny chips) tends to have a comparatively small depth of field. While some may see that as a disadvantage, in many circumstances it’s far sexier, as it draws your attention to what’s important and blurs the rest, like most portrait photography.

Iris affects depth of field. Wide open means that as little as possible will be in focus, while a stopped-down iris gives you deep focus, so that’s probably what s/he meant. Even more effective than iris, though, is lens length. For the smallest depth of field, combine a wide iris with the telephoto end of your zoom, physically moving the camera back until you get the desired framing. Best of all would be to use a 35mm lens adapter system, but those are pricey and cumbersome.

Speaking of exposure, a couple more things. A wide-open iris brightens the image, so this is the way to go if you need to maximize low light levels. But first check that any gain is disabled to avoid electronic noise. If you still don’t have enough sensitivity, check the shutter speed, and slow it down until you do. I wouldn’t go below 1/30, and preferably 1/60. Beyond that, you’ll need to augment with lights or change your position. In low-light situations, avoid the temptation to overexpose. Some parts of the frame are meant to go dark, so let them. A face doesn’t have to be at 75 IRE all the time (that’s Zone 6 for you Ansel Adams dorks). Digital cameras tend to be noisy in the blacks anyway, so let’s not accentuate them unnecessarily.

Posted in multimedia | 1 Comment

1st and Ten

We’ve all seen the yellow/blue lines in football broadcasts that indicate the scrimmage and line to gain. Ever wonder how it works?

As you probably guessed, the line itself is superimposed via chromakey, so anything green- or dirt-colored gets replaced, as would any other solid color they choose. This is why player uniforms, shoes, field logos, etc. are unaffected. Simple enough. But how the lines are actually tracked in motion has left many scratching our heads.

A virtual map of the field is created by placing a laser in the center of the field and measuring the elevations from the middle crown to the edges. Then a handful of specific cameras are outfitted with units that sense and transmit the camera data to the truck, such as zoom distance, pan, and tilt degrees. At the truck, this geometry is then applied to the virtual map and superimposed over the camera’s image. Sort of the opposite of a motion track – now the camera’s movement is the variable instead of screen reference points.*

All the motion-tracking features of the broadcast are handled from this truck, including the Virtual Down and Distance (usually in the red zone), quarterback’s PassTrack, and Video-in-Perspective, where they superimpose network graphics/video over a fake jumbotron that appears to be part of the stadium, even as the camera moves.

Similar systems are now also used for every major sport. Check out the complete suite of services from Sportvision.

* Recording camera data is very common in the visual effects world, as it’s used both to replicate complex camera moves perfectly for multiple passes (to build composite elements), as well as to apply/sync them to animated 3D environments later.

Posted in multimedia | Tagged , | Comments Off on 1st and Ten

Variax Verdict

you’ve mentioned playing a [Line6] variax on here before, and i was thinking about picking one up online (no music stores around here), but how’s it play? how well does it track notes? . . . any other gotchas?

I would never buy a guitar that you can’t get under your fingers in person, but I can tell you it’s a quality axe.

As far as playability, I’d opt for the higher-end 700 model. Better wood, and it’s an archtop, which I’ve come to prefer over the years. Just the angle it creates where my wrist meets the bridge helps my picking accuracy a little compared to flattops. The Variax action isn’t the smoothness of say a PRS, but it’s pretty good, and feels very solid. I do wrestle it a little more, similar to fingering a Strat. It tends to need retuning every couple of songs, too, if you’re playing lead.

Tracking is excellent, nothing like a guitar synth or anything like that. All the articulation is there, from pinch harmonics to string noise, as it’s a piezo system. A tiny, tiny amount of delay that I’m not sure whether is the instrument or the POD I use with it. Switching tones is very fast also. It does not have a ton of sustain.

My biggest complaint, which is minor, is that it’s not great for heavy music. The guitar models tend to be more conservative/classic ones (the fattest sound is a Les Paul), and it excels at clean to overdriven sounds, but not metallic ones. You can still play it that way, of course, it just doesn’t quite have the crunch/bite of an Ibanez. My favorite tones are the Telecaster and Gretschs.

Other gotchas? You can’t just plug it into anything; it has to go through either its powered footswitch or, preferrably, digitally into a POD. I gigged with mine weekly in an 80s band requiring 20 custom patches. I kept a real humbucking guitar plugged into the other instrument jack on the POD, and simply rolled off the unused guitar’s volume.

Posted in music | 1 Comment

Movies I’d Pay to See

In high-concept Hollywood, idea is king. The single-sentence pitch. Here are a few of my aborted attempts at “star vehicles” for celebrities who could use a career-energizing role. Normally I don’t like to just give away my golden tickets for free, but I trust you people.

As Tom Cruise’s detective character nears retirement, he must take on a young hotshot partner who plays by his own rules.

The long-awaited Jet Li/Carrot Top buddy picture.

David Lynch directs a new installment in the Police Academy franchise.

Keanu Reeves is the acting coach hired by a fading Harvey Keitel’s producer to help refine the performance of a lifetime, which Harvey hopes will win back respect once seen.

Russell Crowe goes way undercover to help bring down a male prostitution ring.

Meg Ryan battles Tourette’s Syndrome against the backdrop of the Korean War.

Boy George must raise his two sons after their mother dies, balancing family life with his recent promotion at the construction company.

Paris Hilton and Tracy Morgan fall in love at a hot-dog-eating contest.

Kathy Bates is at the center of a love triangle involving two competitive fraternity brothers going through rush.

Tom Hanks fronts a punk band coming of age while experimenting with drugs and anarchy in 1977.

The Brat Pack reprise “The Breakfast Club” with new roles: Anthony Michael Hall as the burnout, Ally Sheedy as the princess, Judd Nelson as the jock, Molly Ringwald as the compulsive liar, and Emilio Estevez as the dork.

DEA agent Lisa Kudrow attempts to bring down the Vancouver marijuana cartel with the help of tagalong comic-relief journalist Vin Diesel.

Three words – Being John Travolta.

Will Smith and Beyoncé Knowles as Adam and Eve: the Hip-Hopera.

Anthony Hopkins in a Crocodile Hunter prequel.

Pauly Shore as an unfulfilled middle-school principal who works on an American History texbook in his spare time.

Jodie Foster, Susan Lucci, and Frances McDormand in a Charlie’s Angels sequel.

Crispin Glover befriends a co-worker, teaching him how to score with women in exchange for help with his business reports.

O.J. Simpson in a character study of a killer’s mind.

Kirsten Dunst in a coming-of-age tale set in prehistoric Mesopotamia.

Posted in entertainment, humor | Tagged | Comments Off on Movies I’d Pay to See

My Television Education

I like to think that all those years spent in front of the idiot box made me a better person. TV is a great way to learn about how the world works. Were it not for television, I would never have come to realize that:

No one actually works at their jobs; they are there purely for social interaction.

All professional male/female workplace conflicts are rooted in sexual tension.

Nearly everyone in the world has given up smoking.

All I have to do is order “a beer” – the bartender decides which brand for me.

McDonald’s food makes for popular party hors d’oeuvres. Forget the cheese ball and spinach dip. They don’t want wine, they want Fanta.

People don’t curse nearly as much as I’d suspected.

With a slight wave of my hand, I can conjure up a gang of thugs who will surround my unsuspecting enemy.

Every hospital emergency room comes with a Steadicam operator.

People in relationships are very good at describing their feelings using precise metaphors.

A security camera video can be enhanced to any magnification.

No kids are ugly. And if adults are ugly, they’re either dumb, evil, or funny.

Call girls:
• are all models
• mainly service attractive, wealthy clientele
• give it away to detectives for free
• conduct business at their home in a canopy bed
• routinely murder their clients

Cinemax has taught me that breast augmentation is especially popular among female detectives, librarians, photographers, and designers.

“Good-bye” is totally unnecessary when ending a phone conversation.

If a criminal recaptures a computer disk containing incriminating information about him, he will be vindicated. No one ever backs this shit up.

No woman is ever 20 lbs overweight. Only too thin or fat enough to be considered “the fat one.”

Fat guys with lame jobs (and their own sitcom) date beautiful women.

All women are secretly bisexual. Never men, though. But if they’re gay, it’s really funny!

Most families start getting ready for school or work at 10:00 am (that’s how bright it is outside). And it’s normal for neighbors to come hang out during this time as well.

It’s easier to hear that something bad happened if a beautiful news anchor tells me.

Sportscasters can read minds, and will tell us exactly what athletes are thinking when they make a play.

Cops always want to do the right thing, and they’ll put their jobs on the line for it weekly if need be.

Supermodels love beer and the men who drink it.

A large number of acquaintances who hang around Tony Soprano coincidentally end up dead. You’d think people would find new friends after awhile.

Posted in entertainment, humor | Tagged , | Comments Off on My Television Education

Gain Staging

The audio levels on both the camera and the mixer looked good, but everything was distorted when we played it back. What the hell could it have been?

There are many places where things could’ve gone wrong. That’s why it’s important to understand the concept of gain staging.

In a typical field audio setup, the signal gets amplified at many stages, and if any of them distort, you’re stuck with it from that point throughout the chain. Let’s go through them in order.

Mic capsule proximity. The mic itself could be too close to the source, or the pickup pattern incorrect. Wind noise can also result in distortion, so be careful with your shotgun boom angles and use a zeppelin/muff. Also be sure the low cut (bass rolloff) is engaged if appropriate.

Impedance. This would be the same as the Trim knob on a regular mixer. On field mixers it’s usually a switch that goes between dynamic, condenser, and line level. This must match your input source type. If you find that you’re having to crank the fader extremely high or that it’s unusually sensitive, impedance is usually your culprit.

Fader gain. How high the actual channel knob is turned. I like to keep it between six and eight. Don’t forget low cut here as well to help get rid of room rumble.

Master Volume. Turns the sum of all channels up or down. I leave this fixed permanently.

Output level. For the XLRs or snake that comes out of the mixer to your camera, are they set to Line level or Mic level? Remember that mics need a lot more gain to match line-level sources, so the Mic setting will be much louder.

Camera input level. This must match whatever you set for the mixer output level, be it mic or line, and it’s most likely where your particular problem occurred. The mixer was set to Line out, the camera to Mic in, and you compensated with your camera’s channel knobs to get a level that visually appeared healthy. I personally leave everything at line level all the time to avoid confusion.

This never would’ve happened if your sound mixer or boom operator (or yourself) was using proper monitoring techniques. Always listen to the camera’s headphone jack, not the mixer’s. Many mixers allow you to fold back the camera’s headphone out into the mixer’s headphone matrix with a switch. Go back and forth, and the difference shouldn’t be much, possibly only a little perceived volume due to the headphone volume knob on the camera.

There may be other obstacles in the signal chain as well, but those were the basics to look for.

Posted in multimedia, music | 1 Comment

Literary Ventriloquism

so what’s your take on how to write good, engaging, and realistic dialogue? i’ve heard some writers say that you should never use “he saids” and “she saids”. other writers say you HAVE to identify who’s talking at least every sixth line. some say you shouldn’t even use quotation marks, because they just get in the way. still others say to avoid things like “he exclaimed” . . . what do you think? how can i learn to write effective dialogue?

Thanks for the setup; I was going to do a post about this anyway. Today, I’m referring mainly to novel dialogue, but a lot of my inspiration for it comes from the screenwriting world.

The first thing to understand about dialogue is that the words are secondary to the subtext they’re wrapped in. A symptom of amateur writing is that everyone says exactly what they mean, usually in the same voice as the author.

“I’m really sorry I can’t be more emotionally available. My daddy used to beat me.”
“I’d often wondered why you recoil from my affections.”
“Now that you know, I’m afraid you won’t trust me anymore.”
“I will always trust you, and I promise to make him pay for his transgressions.”

Anyone else want to throw up? This is the same reason George Lucas shouldn’t be writing his own scripts. . . . So, we certainly know how the characters feel in that scene, it’s just that dialogue is usually the wrong device to convey strong emotions. In fact, speech is usually my last resort.

Peep this exchange:

“Where’d you go last night?”
“Nowhere.”
“Like the night before?”
“Yeah.”
“I was looking for you.”
“Really?”

Simple, sure, but not necessarily unrealistic. Probably an actor’s wet dream if it were in play form. But I have no idea how to read that, and there’s no one to interpret it for me but you, writer. Even if your character is not the deceptive type, their body language and tone tells us far more than the stuff between the quotes does. Imagine a verbally-convincing phone-sex operator filing her nails while the client does his business on the other end of the line. The priest in the confessional going over his appointment book while the sinner bares his soul. Extreme examples, but both are proof you can’t rely on speech alone to convey meaning. It’s how what we say compares to what we do that defines a large part of our character.

Let’s try it again with subtext:

“Where’d you go last night?” Dick begins as casual as possible, ill-prepared to spar before breakfast.
“Nowhere,” Jane says, eyes now to the floor. She feins cold, pulling her sleeve down over the hand stamped with the telltale scrub-proof nightclub tattoo.
Confidence gaining, his fingers to her dry bath towel. “Like the night before?”
She exhales the last of her Marlboro and stubs it out. “Yeah.” The word hangs in the stale air.
“I was . . .” he scrolls through her cell’s incoming call list, “looking for you.”
“Really?” She brightens in what could almost be mistaken for a smile.

Now that’s a bit too much description, but you get the idea. We know that she’s evasive and guilt-ridden, and he’s passive but untrusting, but their words reveal little of that. Once you set the characters’ “business” and general demeanor for the scene, you can usually just let the dialogue run on its own, clarifying only when there’s a significant change. It’s a cleaner, faster read that breaks up the page nicely, as do short descriptive passages, so use them to salvage your readers’ eyes and attention span.

Emphasis is critical. Take the sentence: I never said she did it. Each individual word, once stressed, completely changes its meaning, from a denial of blame to a clarification to a question of morals. Use italics for these words when confusion may otherwise result. But not to excess.

Attribution, he said. Some of my favorite scribes will occasionally write a scene where they leave this out almost completely, and you’re utterly confused who’s saying what, yet it cleverly happens to add to the dramatic impact, because it could literally work either way. Unless you have a complete mastery of this, I wouldn’t recommend it. Whenever you break the one-paragraph-per-person verbal volleying tradition, such as an extra paragraph in the middle for some description, re-establish who is speaking. I prefer to keep the characters’ actions in the same paragraph as their dialogue for this reason, unless I need a “beat” for pacing reasons. Even if you just have a steady stream of back-and-forths on the page, I do think it’s wise to re-establish attribution every fifth or sixth line. Of course you always know who’s speaking, but think of your reader. Why confuse them?

The verbs we use for attribution. Seventy percent of the time, “said” is your best choice. I personally grow bored with this, but there aren’t many alternatives that don’t sound ham-fisted, so if you can get away with one, use it. You should know well enough when this is. If you think it sounds awkward, you’re probably right. Here are some bad ones:

“You have no idea,” she retorted.
“Jane,” he declared wryly, “that’s why I stay with you.”
“Darnit!” she shouted.
“Come again?” he ejaculated.

These next few sound appropriate, and they save you some description:

“Piss off,” he snaps.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” she lies.
“This,” he snorts, “is why we fight.”
“Dick,” she chokes in her morning rasp, “I told you not to call this early.”

Also notice the last couple, where the attribution/action goes in the middle of the sentence, like an appositive, to imply a natural pause.

I believe that you do need quotation marks. You can certainly get used to not seeing them, but then you need excessive attribution to pull it off, otherwise you often can’t tell whether they are thoughts or are spoken. I like to combine the two sometimes, which does not work with that technique:

I don’t really know, I say. Just because I’m sleeping with her best friend doesn’t mean I would care, either.

I’m also a fan of combining actual quoted dialogue with the abbreviated, descriptive kind:

“Sorry I’m late,” she slides into the booth, catching her breath.
I ask about her day before pouring the wine.
“Let’s just say that rush hour was the bright spot.”
Well she’s here now, and I order us “anything they say might be an aphrodisiac.”

Okay, so those are some basic devices. Now for some general dialogue writing tips. First, it’s a cliché, but study conversations. In coffee shops, bars, supermarkets. With parents, coworkers, lovers, siblings, subordinates. We change our tone and our guard when the balance of authority shifts, and certain venues tend to have their own pre-formatted outlines for convo. Once you understand these conventions is of course when you can begin to break from them. Still, working within them is just as effective sometimes, and can even be unexpected, depending on the character. Ghost World does a great job of toying with both.

People don’t often speak in monologues. Their counterparts interject. In a conversation, you should have lots of dashes where people get cut off, ellipses where they trail, etc. Like in film, cut to a reaction shot sometimes to break up any lengthier sections.

Don’t give us the entire conversation. This isn’t reality; your job is to heighten drama. As with everything else, begin the scene at its latest possible moment when we’re right in the thick of things, and get out before the characters do.

This reminds me, avoid using dialogue for exposition. It can be done in small amounts, just not as a cheat.

Record a few of your phone calls and transcribe them word-for-imperfect word. Use sentence fragments. Like this. Drop some of the final letters on words, like chillin’. Unless it’s a period piece, I’d avoid slang that is of the moment, or you’ll date the work. Realistically, most people use uhs and ums to excess, but limit these in your writing. Again, not reality, so it’s essential to cut out the boring bits unless those lulls have dramatic motivation or develop character.

Give each person a distinct speaking pattern, which will further reduce your need for attribution. Certain words or phrases they repeat. Big words versus small. Length of sentences. Contractions or not. Misuse. Impediments.

Dialogue is one way that people inflate themselves to appear cooler than they are. Conversely, sometimes what comes out of our mouths is not indicative of the intelligence within. In the film world, it’s very common for guys like Tarantino and Kevin Smith to get jobs as “script doctors” to punch up the dialogue.

Good talk, kids.

Posted in writing | Tagged | Comments Off on Literary Ventriloquism

Voice-Over and Over and Over

The narration track he gave me was pretty much unusable. A little noisy, there’s all kinds of mouth sounds, odd breaths, sloppy pronunciations . . . How can I salvage this?

Well, this is why he’s in a booth and we’re in the control room – you gotta crank that shit up to hear the imperfections. It’s also why we are the producers instead of letting people self-record.

Many years ago, an old boss insisted that I sometimes use this voice-over guy who lived in the middle of nowhere and was cheap. You sent him the copy, he read it in his home studio and uploaded a file for you. Every single time, I had to tell the guy to stop editing the tracks; that’s my job. I need options, variations, etc. The raw material. Nowadays, of course, you can do the whole session virtually and “produce” him online.

My advice is to replace him. That’s the best thing for the project. You didn’t say if this was for a radio spot or a video narration, or what, but the requisite audio surgery may or may not be worth your time. Professional VO artists make phat coin for a good reason. Look at it this way: for $250, they can bang out a session in ten minutes, sound like velvet doing it, and get you both home early. Or you can find someone for free that will take 45 minutes to read and two more hours of editing and processing just to achieve a mediocre result. Is it worth it? Depends who you work for.

In 14 years I’ve only had to send “professionals” home four times. They just weren’t cutting it and we were spinning our wheels (two were VO, and the others were on-camera). However, I’ve replaced dozens, maybe hundreds, of amateur/free voices. Usually I don’t even tell them; I just wrap it up quickly and cut our losses. The pros deserve to hear about their performance, though, because there are lots of folks billing themselves as VO artists who have no business doing so. It’s an extremely competitive business, and we tend to use use the same proven handful of golden-throats over and over.

I used to run a DAT backup of the entire session in case there was a glitch in the workstation, and there are a few gems in the collection that make nice holiday reels. Some are actually from my talkback, like the time I lost my patience after the 37th take on the same phrase, and told the guy I was gonna come back there and beat him. He was laughing, I wasn’t (we didn’t have visual contact at that studio). Many are off-color jokes (something about a bulletproof booth brings out the bravado in some). And one other time two people were doing a book-on-tape scene together (about financial planning) that ended up hooking up after the session, and all their thoroughly-unprofessional-yet-hilariously-steamy banter between takes was forever preserved.

Most of the problems I hear are not due to vocal technique. These days, clients tend to like a little personality instead of just the Voice of God, so some minor quirks are almost welcomed. Generally, the lousy VO people are lousy readers. Good readers have a “buffer” in their brain that allows them to read one phrase ahead while their mouth is performing the previous one. Very little takes them by surprise, and they understand the context so they can inflict the proper inflections. These are the people you want for long-form narrations. Everything else is coachable on the spot.

As for removing room tone or hum, there are lots of tools available, and they all work pretty much the same way. The one I use is called X-Noise, and you feed it a short sample of the noise with no voice under it. It analyzes that, then applies it to the rest of the track by either phase reversal or notch filtering it out, I’m not sure. Magical. But you can’t apply it to excess or you compromise the vocal tone, as the voice is often in the same general frequency range as the noise.

The rest is clever editing. Don’t just cut out all the breaths, or it’ll have this subliminally-claustrophobic feeling. Always put your cut just before the first waveform of the sentence but after the inhale, with the inhale for the following sentence ending this region. This way each region begins clean when you move it around or use it elsewhere. You can fly in syllables from other words. Learn to recognize the various sounds that make up language; there aren’t as many as you think, and they can band-aid a slur sometimes. Not much I can do about mouth noise in the middle of a word. Of course the producer should’ve caught all of these things during the session.

Posted in multimedia | Tagged | 2 Comments