Storyboarding Concrete Babylon

March 12th, 2012

The storyboard is a universally accepted step in the process of making an animated film. But how often do we question why we actually make the storyboard? Generally the answer is that the storyboard is a tool to make the plot of the screenplay visual. In my opinion this is not a good reason.

Everything in a film, from the screenplay down to each individual shot or sound, should be there to help convey a message or theme. If we, while storyboarding, focus on the plot, which itself also is a tool to convey the message, we’re only focused on illustrating a tool that tries to convey the message and not on illustrating the message itself.

This may seem like nit-picking, but in my opinion, if we want to make a film that really moves our audience, we need to use every possible chance to improve on the how the message is conveyed. If we only storyboard the plot of the screenplay, we don’t take the storyboard as a chance to improve.

A second reason to storyboard is of pure economic reasons. It is a lot faster (read cheaper) to correct mistakes while storyboarding than it is while animating. Also, the better you know the story, down to each individual scene and shot, the less chance that you’ll make mistakes while animating. Brad Bird has talked about his how they kept the costs down on “Iron Giant” by creating very elaborate storyboards and animatics that helped them during the animation.

While working on Concrete Babylon I’ve tried to constantly focus on making the film a strong experience for the audience, also while storyboarding, always thinking about why the shot/scene/sequence should be in the film (its message) and how to convey this the strongest before illustrating the actions of the scene.

To be sure the message is told as strongly as we’re capable of, several drafts are always needed. Although making several drafts may sound like something we all know is needed, in reality it isn’t as easy, especially while working alone like I’m doing on Concrete Babylon.

The biggest problem when working alone, or while working in a very small team, is the lack of objective criticism. Criticising ones own work is not only colored by the fact that we, since we know exactly what we want to convey, have a lot easier time seeing this than what our audience will have, also there are other factors, where our subconscious try to convince us to be lazy and to be satisfied with the first draft. One of these factors is the so called “sunk-cost effect”.

What the sunk-cost effect says that the more energy/time/money we put in to something the harder time we will have to see that it isn’t as good as we think it is. One of the clearest examples of the sunk-cost effect is in professional sports where an underperforming player that was bought with a very expensive contract generally gets more playing time than a player who performs better but had a cheap contract.

The sunk-cost effect also taints our decision-making while storyboarding. If it takes a long time to create one draft it will be harder to see if the draft is good. Redrawing a feature-length storyboard with 3000+ drawings is no fun, it takes a long time to do it alone so the influence of the sunk-cost effect influences the critique of the storyboard.

The best way to limit the effect of the sunk-cost effect is, first, being aware that it exists and influences us, and second, to work more efficient. The shorter the time to produce a draft the less the influence of the sunk-cost effect on the critique of the draft.

While I was planning how to approach the storyboarding process, efficiency was top priority. Although I didn’t have close to all the answers when I started I’ve learned a lot during the process.

To storyboard faster the first solution that comes to mind generally is to find ways to draw faster by, for example, doing small thumbnail sketches before drawing them bigger or by increasing ones skill etc. But thumbnailing only increases ones speed so much, and improving ones skill comes slow. I believe a better solution is to look at what really drives the production, what makes us produce.

First of, of cause, comes the motivation. Why am I doing this? Why is it important for me to achieve it? Finding the real motivation (not what sounds good to tell others but what is important to you) helps you find the passion to really dedicate yourself and have the discipline to continue when things get hard and you don’t feel like doing it. Discipline helps you creating and keeping routines of HOW to approach the work. Having routines and patterns to follow helps you to get in to the right mindset, to find the focus needed to to create a flow in WHAT you do. Using routines and patterns to get in the right mindset is something most athletes do to help them focus on the task ahead, it is also used by zen Buddhists who have often use a kata (routine or pattern) to help them get to a mushin state (doing without thinking).

Finding routines to help us focus and removing distractions while working (Facebook, internet, email, colleges etc.) helps us find the flow state where things comes naturally and we don’t first have to think about what the next step should be, the flow state where we tend to make fewer mistakes that we would need to spend time on correcting.

When it gets to the actual storyboarding most people do it by doing scene after scene, generally working linear from the beginning to the end. In my opinion this is the wrong way to approach it, because this is to try to start with the details before seeing the whole. The individual drawings of a storyboard aren’t important. The drawings only are only important in context with each other as a part of the story. Since the individual drawings of the storyboard don’t have any value by themselves, and neither have the individual scenes, it is very hard to analyse them and see if they really work. We need to have the whole to know what we’re looking for when analysing the details. This is the way we draw, the way we animate and write screenplays. When we’re working on details before we have the whole picture, we’re working on details that we don’t even know if they really should be there.

In a lot of other businesses, mainly those following lean or agile management, new products are often released in frequent updates of “minimum viable products” or MVP:s. A MVP is a product with the minimal possible features for a functioning product. Each new release of MVP:s allows the producer to analyse the product, generally with the help of early “beta-testers” who try the product, and see in practice what works and doesn’t, instead of trying to guessing the answers. I think that we as filmmakers have something to learn from this.

On Concrete Babylon I’m working in a way where I’m gradually creating a more detailed film. The is storyboard, of cause, a part of this, but not as an “isolated item” rather as early versions of the film, and since the film is an audio visual storytelling experience early music and audio references are also added to create a MVP of a film.

I start of the storyboarding process with trying to find the films key image, the image I feel moves me the strongest emotionally, the image that defines the film. This image can be compared to what in screenwriting is called a logline, a one sentence summary of the film. To find the key image I generally have to try several different scenes to find the right one, and I force myself to try different techniques and designs to find what I feel would be optimal for the theme of the story. I also think that it is better to find the character and environmental design in context of the story rather than independently from each other. When I have the key image I also try find a sound design and musical theme that I feel would be right, not by composing anything myself but by referring to an other film or piece of music.

When the key image is done I start to add more detail to the film by illustrating the main turning points of the story. For me this generally is five images, one for each of the five turning points, the context, the conflict, the complication, the climax and the new context. If I feel I can work with fewer images or need one or two more, I of cause do this. For these images I also try to focus on the visual progression of the film. The design, like every other element in a film is about storytelling, and since storytelling is about progression the design should develop during the film, unless it is better for the story if the design is static. I tend to use these images as a way to try out the technique I’m going to animate the film in, to see how I might approach it the most efficient. I don’t actually animate the scenes but I recreate them in the technique I’m going to use. The last part here is to find how I think the sound/music should develop through the film.

An important thing to mention is that I don’t at this stage necessarily use a cinematic composition in the illustrations of the film, since I’m fully aware that, even if I would use a cinematic composition, all these images would still be changed and improved upon later in the process as I learn more. This brings me to another point. If I find something that would improve the film, it doesn’t matter if it’s a story, design or sound change, I do it. I see everything I do is a temporary solution untill I find a way to make the film a stronger experience for the audience. Since I work from few general images and gradually to a more detailed film, these changes does not take a lot of time to implement.

As I move on I continue to gradually add more detail, first illustrating the sequences, then the scenes before doing the individual shots and lastly doing a draft of the storyboard where I’m focused mainly on how to use the editing (montage) to help tell the story and make the animation simpler (read faster). These images I learnt to keep as rough sketches after finding how I kept wasting time cleaning up images I had to throw away anyway. I also work with the audio in parallel, gradually adding more detail, but not getting in to too much detail, the main focus is still is on the visuals.

When I’m done with the storyboard, I use the its images as templates to build each scene and shot of the film in the technique I’m going to animate in. I also pose the characters in the keyposes from the storyboard. After this comes the animation. But that is an entirely different article!

Thank you for taking your time and reading my post,
Peter Hertzberg

As Wise as a Child

February 29th, 2012

We value knowledge. As group living animals we feel that knowledge moves us up the hierarchy. But what we fail to see that our knowledge often makes us narrow-minded.

We may say that we seek to learn more, but we mainly seek to strengthen our opinion and seldom to disprove it, fearing that disproving it may make us seem stupid. We act as solid rock instead as moldable clay and by doing this we stop to develop, stop moving forward.

To develop as people we should learn from those around us that are wiser. Those who accept that they don’t know everything and those who aren’t afraid asking questions will make them look stupid. Those who allow themselves to develop. We should learn from children.

Children have a powerful tool most of us forget as we grow up. A tool that allows them to constantly learn more, to constantly improve and get better. That tool is the question “Why?”. They not only ask people around them “Why?”, they also constantly ask themselves “Why?”. This “Why?” is what allows them to not only learn from others, but also to learn from their own actions and choices. By asking “Why?” they question both the world and their own actions, and by doing this they see ways to improve and develop as people.

As we grow up we are often thought to follow “facts”, what our teachers tell us or what is written in a book, and not to question these facts, not to ask “Why?” this fact is true. By not questioning we learn not to learn, we close ourselves of from finding new and better solutions.

For the longest time Europeans knew for a fact that all swans where white since all swans they saw where white. But a while after Europeans came to Australia, where there are black swans, this “fact” got thrown out the window. All that remains of that “fact” is the question “How many white swans do you have to see to determine that there are no black swans?”

By learning to ask “Why?” and to question, not mainly what others tell us but ourselves, we open ourselves up to learn more, to get better at what we do. We learn how to get more productive by being more efficient and not by working more hours (working more hours soon makes us less productive by making us tired which decreases our focus which in turn makes us make more bad choices that we have to redo). Working more efficient allows us to get more done which gives us more experience and help us improve even more.

As with everything else, there are both positive and negative sides with asking “Why?”. Asking a question starting with “Why” often makes the question sound harsh, like trying to put somebody down rather than helping (Why are you doing this? Why haven’t you done that? Why! Why! Why!). I believe it is better to, when questioning somebody else, not to use why since it easily makes the recipient defensive. When we’re defensive we’re not open to learn since our energy is on defending our opinion. I believe a better solution is to try to entice the recipient to ask herself questions about what she has done, how she came to that solution and why those choices where made. In other words, help her to learn more.

We also need to be carefull in how we use “Why?” to question our own work and ideas since we can make ourselves defensive and make us hesitate and falter in our decision making and in taking action and moving towards our goals. To prevent this we need remember that what we should analyse is our past actions and question why we got the result we got and, by doing this, learn from those choices and actions to help us make our choices today.

It is only from things that we have experienced that we can receive the practical knowledge that allows us to truly learn. Things we have only planned to do, or things we only have second, third or forth hand experience of (that is reading, lectures etc.) is only theoretical knowledge. Although theoretical knowledge does help us, theoretical knowledge is only knowledge in theory untill it is put in practice and experienced so that we can see if our interpretation of it really is helpful.

Trying to choose our actions based on theoretical knowledge gives us less confidence in our choices which easily puts our focus on fearing a failure rather than the task at hand. If we instead look at what we’ve learned from our experiences we have more confidence in that what we choose to do is what will take us the biggest step closer to our goal. Having the attitude that the chosen action, rather than being a perfect solution, is an experience to learn from and improve from, we decrease our fear of failure even more. We end up having more of an “improvement mindset” instead of a “failure mindset”.

As soon as we think we know exactly what we’re doing, as soon as we see ourselves as experts who know most there is to know about a subject, we close ourselves in and stop to learn. As we stop to learn and our abilities stop to develop, our abilities will, like flower that no longer grows, start to wither.

Asking “Why?” is a great tool to help us see that we can improve, to help us find better processes and work methods that’ll make us become more efficient, get more experience and learn even more. If we learn that not knowing doesn’t make us stupid, that we should embrace uncertainty and learn from our mistakes, we learn to be as wise as a child, to be as moldable as a piece of clay.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.”
-Einstein

I hope you have enjoyed this article!
Peter Hertzberg

Illustrated Radio or Film?

December 25th, 2011

Here in Sweden there is an over reliance on voice over in animated films, and its done to the degree that, if you would turn of the sound when watching them, you’d have no idea of what was going on. All of the story is told in the voice over, the animation and visuals are only in the films to give some visual stimulation to the audience while they listen to the voice over telling them the story. You could say that most Swedish animation is illustrated radio rather than film.

So, do I think that voice over is bad? Absolutely not. But filmmaking is a collaboration, not only between people, but mainly between the different storytelling elements and tools used in the film. I wrote in a previous article about how 1 + 1 can equal 3, and this applies to everything in a film. You can communicate a stronger message by making signs/storytelling elements work in synergy or in contrast than they would do alone. If you let one of the storytelling elements starts overshadowing the rest, you lose the chance of it working together with other elements.

If you feel that your films message would strengthen with a voice over, start by thinking about who the narrator is. The most used, but in my opinion the hardest to do well, is the storyteller narrator. With the storyteller narrator the voice over comes from someone outside of the story, like someone reading the story from a book. In the storyteller narration it’s often hard not to repeat what is already seen in the images. One way of approaching it is, since it is narrated like someone reading it from a book, to treat it like it is read from a book. There are things that are easier to communicate in written form than in images or sound effects. You can utilize this to your advantage.

Sensory sensations like heat, smell, taste etc. can be hard to communicate in film. Using narration with sensory based metaphors to strengthen visual elements (like “he stepped out and the thick, warm air hit him in the face…” or “The food tasted like it smelled, like five time regurgitated bile”) or the characters emotions (“His mouth was dry” or “Butterflies fluttered around in her belly” or “The sight made her blood boil.”) allows you to let the narration work in synergy with the visuals so that they together communicate a stronger message.

Another option in voice over is to use an unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is a character who is part of the story, either as main character or closely connected to her, who retells the events from her point of view. Because we as humans newer can comprehend 100% of what happens in a situation, our view of what has happened will only be correct from our point of view not from other people, that makes every one of us unreliable to retell an event alone.

Using an unreliable narrator generally works in two ways, either the same situation is told several times from different points of views or by, what I enjoy more in a film, letting the narration retell the story from the characters point of view and contrasting this with the images showing what really happened. Like, for example, having a beautiful romantic poem read in the voice over while the visuals showing a dark man hiding in the shadows while following a woman. Another example of use of an unreliable narrator is in Forrest Gump, where Forrest retells his life from his point of view and the images show us what really happened. I think contrasting elements like this generally creates a stronger effect on the audience by creating a lacuna, or gap, between the storytelling elements, this lacuna creates room in the film for the audience to participate in the story in a way that is hard to do when letting the elements convey the same message or making them work in synergy.

Using voice over can be a great tool, but it can also be abused. The most important rule to remember is to not let the voice over retell what you can already see in the images. When you’re making animation you can get away with doing this, but try to think of your film as being live action instead. Would the voice over work even if the film was live action? If not, don’t do it in animation either just because you can get away with a sloppy execution in the medium.

Although the best way to communicate a message is to make it clear and easy to understand, it is not about being simplistic. The line between being simple and simplistic is blurry, but as a general rule: Being simplistic is about you and how you can get away with less work, and being simple is about your audience and how to communicate the message to them as clearly as possible.

Thank you for taking your time,
Peter Hertzberg

Winter Night – Final Episode

December 24th, 2011

In episode 8, the final episode, the child has let the snowman leave. But is it for the best for the snowman to leave alone?

More info on the Winter Night web series is available on the series webpage.

I hope you have enjoyed the Winter Night web series!
Peter Hertzberg

Winter Night – Episode 7

December 22nd, 2011

In episode 7 the child remembers the snowman just in time to see it leaving. Will the child be able to convince the snowman to stay? And should the snowman stay in a place where it might melt?

More info on the Winter Night web series is available on the series webpage.

I hope you will like this episode!
Peter Hertzberg

Winter Night – Episode 6

December 20th, 2011

In episode 6 since the snowman can’t handle tha warmth it has to go outside. The following morning the snowman waits for the child to come out and play, but will the child remember the snowman when it’s Christmas day and there are gifts to open?

More info on the Winter Night web series and previous episodes is available on the series webpage.

I hope you will enjoy this episode!
Peter Hertzberg

Winter Night – Episode 5

December 15th, 2011

In episode 5 seeing that the snowman isn’t mean, the child gives the snowman the Christmas gift. But does the snowman know what a Christmas gift is? And does the child really want to give away whats inside the box?

More info on the Winter Night web series and previous episodes is available on the series webpage.

I hope you’ll enjoy this episode!
Peter Hertzberg