"Storyboard" is a general term that applies to a lot of different formats and applications. Storyboarding could, generally mean any sketched-out framework for explaining a concept or idea (a complex computer game or website for example), or intricately rendered sketches that show the frames of an advertising campaign or TV commercial. But what we’re talking about here is capturing an intermediate stage between what is in a film director’s head and what will eventually appear on the big screen. This includes all elements that go into making the frame, from the emotion the actors, music and setting will bring to it, to each visual effect or CG element that will eventually be applied in post production.
Sounds like a lot of work, doesn’t it? Well, condensed into one task, it really is manageable, but does require practice and attention to detail. Crucial is at least a working knowledge of what goes into making a feature film (as well as some rudimentary drawing skill, which goes without saying, I hope).
Flair & Influence
A lot of what passes for storyboards — at least in the television and advertising worlds — just don’t cut it in film as far as I’m concerned. Film is a very fluid medium, a lot more so than television or TV commercials. Films are big, they have scope, whether it’s an oil refinery exploding, or just two people sitting in a room talking.
The best way to explain this is by thinking about the layout and frames of a really good comic book or graphic novel. A huge inspiration for me when I was growing up was the work of the artists working for Marvel Comics in the 70’s, especially “The Living Mummy” which was one of my monthly faves. Their approach toward the material was extremely cinematic, with duplicated frames showing action and movement. There was no mistake, without even reading the words, what the dramatic intention was at any point in the story.
There are better examples today, especially with the works of Frank Miller (“Sin City”, “300”) which, as film makers have found out, can pretty much be visually lifted verbatim from print to the screen, and still work exactly the same way.
Dynamic movement is something else that good comic books and graphic novels do well, mainly based on frame position, size, composition and other visual tricks. The unfortunate thing about storyboards for film, is that you are restricted to the film frame, so, whereas in a comic book you might have a very tall frame showing the hero leaping up a fire escape to the top of a building, giving the feeling that the camera should tilt up with him, you’ll have a wide frame you’ll have to fill in the storyboard / film version. There are tricks and ways around this, keeping the image loose and moving the frame around within it. There were are lot of art directors-illustrators-storyboard artists in the 1960’s and 1970’s who were pros at this (look at some or the storyboards for Hitchcock’s films from this period, or the work of Joe Alves on “Jaws”). Sylvain Despretz is a pro at this these days. If you look at his storyboards for “Gladiator” or if you can find his storyboards for Ridley Scott’s proposed version of “I Am Legend” you’ll see why he’s one of the best storyboard artists and illustrators out there today. Bottom line, however close you can come, in crafting storyboard frames, to what the director has in mind, the better off the film will be. This is the director’s chance to shoot the film ahead of time at significantly less cost than going out there and shooting the movie. It’s a chance to play and move things around (it’s not uncommon at all to redraw frames at different angles or rearrange whole sections of action for multiple drafts of a sequence in working out what will look good in the finished film).
Alfred Hitchcock often said that he found actually going out and shooting the film to be a chore, he considered his job done once he’d worked with a storyboard artist on his vision for the screen.
Going Technical
Until someone comes up with some clever way of inputting movies directly into our brains, film makers are restricted to what can be seen through a camera lens and a camera lens has certain technical qualities that define what can be seen and captured.
Unlike an illustration or drawing, as previously mentioned, you are constrained to the rectangle that is defined by the film “gate” or “aspect ratio”. The basic x and y dimensions of this aspect ratio will vary depending on how the film is being shot, what the final presentation is intended to be.
For film projects, no matter what size, you’re going to have three basic options, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. Both 16:9 (usually spoken aloud as “sixteen-nine”) and 1.85:1 (“one-eight-five-one” or “one-eight-five” if you’re in a real hurry) are a full, “tall” (not really all that tall) HD or cinema frame. 16:9 will fill a whole HD screen and is usually the size that a DVD will show on a widescreen, while 1.85:1 will have a little bit of letterboxing at the top and bottom on the screen. Most projects are shot with this aspect ratio; it’s a good, standard frame that will adapt well to a consumer DVD. If you’re talking about the latest Will Farrell comedy or something like that, it’s probably one of these two aspect ratios. If someone says the project is being shot Super-35, this is what they’re probably talking about.
2.39:1 (usually “two-three-nine”) is a wider, Cinemascope-style frame. When it’s eventually shown on an HD widescreen, there will be considerably more letterboxing at the top and the bottom. Big, epic movies, like “Star Wars” or “Indiana Jones” will be 2.39:1.
Knowing what the aspect ratio the project will be shot at is important information to know before you start. If you begin happily sketching away at 2.39:1 widescreen and then you’re told, no, the project is 1.85:1, you’re going to have to do some re-sketching for the taller frame, or vice-versa.
Beyond the x and y of the frame, the z-dimension, or depth needs to be taken into consideration. It’s one thing to always draw your frames from a wide or a close and not worry about what’s going on behind (or in front of) whatever your point of interest is, but if you’re really trying to get as close as possible to what the finished film will look like, you need to know at least a little bit about lenses and focal lengths.
Now, don’t panic, I’m not saying that you need to specifically know what lens will be used for a shot. That’s the D.O.P.’s job anyway. You just need to know some basics about what various lenses do. A wide lens, for example, will obviously show more of the landscape and the people or objects that populate it, but it will also show more depth. For example, of you are drawing a space babe getting out of a spaceship on a distant, rocky planet, the background’s not going to be pushed up all around her, it’s going to stretch off into infinity.
On the other hand, if the director wants a “long lens” shot of the space babe’s head, as she gets out of the capsule, those distant mountains are now going to be pushed up around her and may or may not be completely out of focus, depending on the look the director and D.O.P. decide on (as well as lighting conditions on the day of the shoot).
Now, you’re confused, I’m sure. “When you say the mountains stretch off into the distance, surely you mean that’s a long lens.” Well, no. When someone says short lens or long lens they’re talking about the actual, physical shape of the lens rather than what it captures. As a rule, lenses that capture a wide frame, are quite short, so they’re referred to as short lenses. Lenses that zoom in and capture only a small section of the action (therefore compressing the background behind it and any objects in front) tend to be physically longer, therefore are called long lenses.
The best way to look at this is in terms of three planes: the foreground, the middle-ground and the background. Say the foreground is a table with some flowers, the middle ground is our subject and the background is the room and the window beyond. If you think about these planes moving depending on how zoomed-in the camera is, you’re going to be pretty close to what’s technically possible on the day.
Working Process
You are very lucky indeed, if a director says to you, “Here’s the script, go off and storyboard it.” I fact, I can nearly guarantee that’s not going to happen unless you have worked with the director for many years and have a “shared vision” of some kind. More likely, you’re going to have to sit down with the director for many, many hours and go through every scene in the script that needs to be ‘boarded.
Now, this doesn’t mean you won’t have a chance of offer your own input. Once you really get into putting the scene together, you may have an idea for a shot or an angle. Go ahead and sketch it out. It may be the greatest shot in the film. Just make sure you sketch out what the director wants first and only offer your additional frames for what they are: alternates.
Unless the director you’re working with is the most patient person in the world, you’re not going to be able to sit there and sketch out each frame as they tell it to you. Generally, the way that I will work is to sit with a notebook and sketch out thumbnail frames (which are only for my reference) or go right down to text when things get tense, such as a fast sequence with a lot of cuts. Later, I’ll take these notes and thumbnails and sketch them out properly into larger, sequential frames, which will then get touched-up and rendered nicely if need be.
I work in sequence, one page of frames at a time (generally up to eight frames per page, never more). Working in order allows you to get into the flow of the scene. Working with a set max number of frames per page allows you to have something to shoot toward. If you try plowing through a whole sequence as your goal, you’re going to constantly be discouraged (at least at the start) that there’s no end in sight. This way, you can at least say, “I did two pages today” or whatever.
Next
Next time, we’ll begin going through a sample project from start to finish and we’ll cover, in depth, some of the points I’ve touched on here, such as depth of field, dynamic flow of frames and camera movement.
