Thursday, June 10th, 2010
Single-Location Movies
I know that anyone *funding* a film loves a single-location concept - but what does the rest of the world think? Are they too much ‘like a play’? Or do the restrictions just add to the creativity in storytelling techniques as with Rear Window’s complicit tension or Reservoir Dogs‘ flashback-heavy narrative?
In my opinion, many single-location stories have an ‘ooooh’ concept but only a ‘meh’ execution. There’s an interesting hook at the beginning, a decent pay-off at the end and a lot of treading-water in the middle. I find this isn’t because the characters don’t go anywhere new - it’s because the STORY doesn’t. I don’t think these films are ‘too talky’ by definition - but it’s all too easy to write redundant dialogue that’s simply filling pages until the next set-piece. (Similarly, filling Act Two with chases and jet-setting doesn’t help matters either. If it doesn’t move the story along, it’s still going to be hollow.)
This is why I always use David Slade’s HARD CANDY as my favourite example of a low-budget, high-impact breakthrough movie. Two principal actors, one main location (a nice house), a central as well as a notorious scene you’ve probably heard about even if you’ve not see it (Download the script here)
In Hard Candy, what keeps the pace alive and the drama vivid is that the SITUATION keeps changing, even if the location doesn’t. Far more expensive films could take a lesson. Each sequence provides a revelation or shifts the balance of power between the two protagonists. This is what grabbed me. It’s by no means perfect but, by the end of the film, I didn’t know whose side I was on - let alone how I wanted it to end or how it actually would.
From Hard Candy to The Shining and The Breakfast Club, there’s no way these films are a gimmick. They just seem that way when the writer has come up with a cool location instead of a cool story.
June 11th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Mike Ritchie said:
I really enjoyed ‘Hard Candy’, the single-location-ness stood out as narrative tool, rather than feeling like a bit of a cop out. I liked how some of the close-ups of the actors only had blocks of colour behind them (from the painted interior walls). It was all kind of surreal and helped focus your attention on the drama.
‘12 Angry Men’ is another example of how a single location was used as a great narrative device. I love how the camera perspective changes to reflect the building tension and the ever-dwindling politenesses bred from unfamiliarity.
So, yeah, it might help sell a script to a small budget production, but the idea of limiting filming locations can produce great results and entertaining drama on screen.
~ Mike
June 11th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Chuck Spear said:
You’re definitely spot-on with The Shining, a film I personally consider the scariest film I’ve ever seen, not just in the story or the way it’s shot, but also as a veritable master class in sound design and mixing.
While I liked Hard Candy for what it was trying, and for the constant upper-hand changes, it ultimately left me feeling empty and it’s a film I have no desire to revisit–and not just because of THAT scene.
To your list I’d like to add, well, a couple of films from a genre which houses single-location films: The Great Escape and The Shawshank Redemption. In the case of the former, the principals are engaged in an almost Sisyphean existence, constantly trying to escape in one way or another–considering it their duty TO try–knowing that the Germans will find a way to stop them. (Until they escape of course. And even when they do…)
While in Shawshank we have a similar Sisyphean struggle, namely the prisoners seeking parole and always being denied it, the film is different because we’re getting a longer passage of time for events and lives to unfold. Though more deliberately paced, the tension comes not just in the form of Andy battling his attackers, but even more so in Andy’s tiny rebellions–the opera blaring over the prison PA system, the library–which speak toward liberation even as they put him at personal risk. And, over the course of the film, we see more literal liberation by means of escape (Andy), bu release (Red) and by death (both Andy’s student, and the suicide of the old librarian). The location here is key because, as one character says about the prison’s walls, “First you hate ‘em, then you get used to ‘em. Enough time passes, you get so you start to depend on ‘em.”
Also curious where you’d put a film like Shutter Island.
June 13th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
john said:
Thanks, Mike - glad you agree and approve. Great to hear from a director as I think that interesting visuals can be created anywhere (even somewhere as everyday ‘a house’). As you say, even faces can make brilliant visuals - especially when contrasting with what’s being said. Subtext ahoy!
Chuck - You know, I never thought of Shawshank but I think you’re absolutely right and back up my point even more than I thought. There’s somewhere where the daily grind really is trying to grind you down. Andy’s continued resistance - even existence - becomes something spectacular, even to the point where you wouldn’t be at all surprised if they *had* found him dead in his cell… I hadn’t really thought about films where the antagonist is actually an institution (like 1984 etc)
And I wouldn’t put Shutter Island anywhere yet as I’m still waiting for the DVD to arrive