Where for art thou Production Design? - Food for thought.

In the world of film, Production Design, forthwith known as PD, seems to have become the step-child of filmmaking. I cannot say for certain but I am starting to get more and more of a whiff that this particular avenue of the industry is being neglected even in films from the US, UK and other cinema-leading nations. Then again it could just all be in my head. Though the trend might not be as prevalent yet, as it is here in South Africa, I would urge filmmakers from everywhere to keep an eye out for this potential scourge, especially when it comes to smaller budget-films. But my concern is not what you might think. The harsh financial realities of filmmaking does force us sometimes to make tough decisions, I just wonder if we might not be cultivating other problems underneath the surface and as the saying goes, “…out of sight, out of mind”.

Had my experiences thus far only been with seasoned professionals I might be whistling a different tune but I have noticed a nonchalant and concerning approach to the practicalities of PD. Whether it be dressing sets, building or painting, the excuse of limited, or no funds always rears its ugly head even when it doesn’t have to. It becomes an enabler and I believe this problem might stem from the way that the subject is taught. My experience is that PD focus heavily on philosophical-interpretative creation as the main overshadowing consideration, rather than a healthy mix between the above-mentioned and the visual-realities of the medium. Yes, there are certain creative approaches to PD and like every other department in film, they tell the story in their own way, leading the audience’s sub-conscious through the film almost in the same way a good score would, without being noticed. But what should not be forgotten is that this journey cannot happen without the visual cues found on-screen. The actual, tangible properties which the eyes can see.

So why am I mentioning this? Well the following is rough recollection of an exchange I had with a young, but impressive and aspiring PD, some time ago:

So there I was, minding my own business when I noticed a set being built in the studio. I was not a part of the production but I could not resist the lure and just had to sneak a peek. I bumped into the PD and asked what they were shooting. He replied that they were preparing to shoot a murder scene, set in a living room. I glazed over the bare white walls, old couch and lone coffee-table, surprised to learn that they were shooting in about an hour. I couldn’t help but ask why the set was so empty and the swift answer did not surprise me. “Money” he replied. I just had to point out the obvious, telling him that everybody has a living room, could they not just have scavenged from the crew’s houses? Without missing a beat, he reassured me that that wasn’t necessary as the story was a psychological thriller and that the sparsely furnished room, reflected the victim’s mental state, alone and scared. He went in to great detail justifying everything questionable about the space with some abstract explanation on how it links to the mental state of the victim, the killer and the story.

Now, I have a confession to make. This was a student film and as such, there is a lot to be forgiven to be sure. Inexperience and eventual failure does not deserve ridicule but rather applause. The more you do wrong, the more you learn. The problem I had with this approach was not that the person was inexperienced, running around like a headless chicken to get the job done in the best way they knew how under the circumstances. If that were the case, I would’ve wished them well and been on my way. No, the problem was that this student was absolutely convinced of what he was doing. In his mind, he wasn’t wagering an inexperienced guess but instead was doing exactly what he was taught to do which was to supplement philosophy with the visual, instead of balancing it out. This was not an isolated incident either as this approach spilled into the other departments as well.

On a side-note, many film students had a hard time, and still do, in reconciling what they were taught with what they can feel in their gut (as lifelong viewers), to be right. But because such emphasis was placed on this “deeper meaning” and “making connections” approach, they just assumed that, without exception, all films were made this way. They would then apply their new-found confusion to their own projects with disastrous consequences. One very talented writer, who was also a film student went on to pursue another career entirely after university because she just couldn’t make sense of how to incorporate these approaches into her films. It was sad.

But to bring it back to PD, this was again confirmed when I had to sit through one semester of PD-classes. Don't ask. We were tasked to compile a treatment for a horror-film about a doctor who ingests his own medical-cocktail which then turns him into a sewer-monster covered in algae. The film was actually supposed to get made at the end of the year and the PD was to be done by the PD-students. So any addition to the treatment would have to be carefully considered to make it practical and achievable on a tiny budget. I thought this was a wonderful exercise and the juices began to flow. My experience up until that point was not much but I loved building things and also understood the importance of creating a realistic world. There’s nothing quite like filling a space and watching it come to life on camera.

My excitement was short-lived however as it became clear, to me at least, that students were more interested in finding vague and obscure excuses not to do things as appose to the other way around. Complex psychological and philosophical analysis gave way to dull and unimaginative ideas.

Take the doctor’s practice for example. In terms of location, what was suggested by almost all was the stereotypical, modern, clean space. This is what a successful and charming doctor’s office would look like, right? It showed his clinical nature, his success and was an accurate portrayal of the front he was putting up for the menacing thoughts he hid inside. Clean and clinical? That sounded like every doctor you could find within a hundred-mile radius. Were they all soon to be sewer-monsters covered in algae? All doctors are clean and clinical. If this particular doctor’s personality had to spill out onto that location, in the form of color, furniture, lighting, mood and decorations, would it really still be clean and clinical? Would it not reflect an obsessive man, being drawn further into madness by his creation, feeling contempt for a world that does not understand his genius? This sounds like the polar opposite of clean and clinical to me.

Once again, this was not about inexperience. These students never questioned their approach. They did exactly what they were taught to do, which was to motivate these links through obscurity. They did so and once they found what they were looking for, they accepted it and moved on. Nobody asked the obvious question…was this space boring to look at? There was no need to ask. The vague reasoning that linked the space to the character was the only thing that mattered and somehow I got the feeling, though it was never explicitly expressed, that it was just up to the Director and the Cinematographer to capture it in an interesting way. This was of course all the more justified when somebody said out loud “…it’s actually perfect that way because of the budget”.

From what I can tell, the following is the modern-day approach to PD. Find obscure and vague connections between the character/story and the spaces you have to consider. Chip away at these connections, in turn, chipping away at the physical properties within a particular space. Then finally, pat yourself on the back for a job well-done on a no-budget shoot.

As stated before, I do understand the financial difficulties, trust me, I do! Also as stated before, my concern focusses less on the monetary restrictions and more on the approach being taught and the way these limited funds might serve as a catalyst in cultivating some weird form of educated-laziness.

I’ll end with this. I did not have the opportunity to work in the film-industry throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, so there’s no way for me to know how they would've approached a project. But having watched so many films from these eras, I cannot help but think that the overriding question that drove their work was “…what does it look like?”, whereas today, it feels more and more like a question of “…what does it say?”. If true, we should probably ask ourselves what the long-term outcome of such an approach might be and how will it manifest itself on-screen. Anyways, just food-for-thought...

12/03/2021 – 09:03