Style and the DNA default

Do you have a personal style, and do you think it comes from your DNA?

I get lots of feedback on the work that we’ve done in the past year, especially for the TV spots we did for Nova Scotia Come to life, and the short doc we shot in The Gambia.

People often say they “really like the style” of the work – the way it was shot. It always surprises me to hear that they’re picking up on “a style.” To me, it doesn’t feel like a particular style, it’s just my default or standard approach to shooting. I look across 20 TV spots we did for the CTL campaign over the course of a year and a half, and they DO seem to have a style. So where does this “style” come from?

There are certain shots that I routinely fall back on — shots I like: the portrait shot, of course. The follow shot — where I follow with the camera behind the person who is apparently taking us somewhere in their world. And in the same vein, I always prefer to look over a person’s shoulder at whatever they’re doing — rather than being in front of them and just tilting down for a close-up. To my eye, this makes a more dynamic shot. If I were a boy Scout again, learning how to tie a bowline knot, I’d probably want to look over someone’s shoulder instead of watching face-on…

I like going from detail to the big picture. I like a dynamic blend of moving, hand-held shots intercut with static shots. “Hand-held” is NOT a style! Nor is “on the tripod.”

Can style just be part of your DNA? Or is it learned?

I’ve been teased before for being slow, methodical and thoughtful – and probably too serious at times! I think I’m a slow thinker, or I just really like lots of space to let images work, and to let spoken thoughts just sink in. And I can remember being particular about how to take a picture since I was 12 years old. I was shooting moody photos back then, and some of my favourite TV spots in the Come to life series are what I would consider “moody” — and not the typical treatment of images of Nova Scotia.

I have maddened a few editors by asking for more “lyrical” cutting, with more pacing or breathing space. When I cut, that’s what I go for. When I watch, that’s where I’m comfortable.

I heard once that we tend to like writers whose temperaments we share. Many summers ago on a beach near Shediac, I discovered the writing of Canadian author Timothy Taylor, and found that the short stories in his book Silent Cruise sort of matched my temperament. Subtle character revelation, character revealed through action and situation details, rather than description. Lots of irony and metaphor. The same probably goes for films. Early film loves: Rocky, Diva, The Graduate. Those were all about music, and pacing.

So I think that if there’s a style in my DNA, it’s about lyrical pacing, detail and metaphor.

But I don’t know if that’s what others would see or how they would characterize it. I was given a Style Guide when I first started working on the Come to life spots, and I think I followed it well, but I know I interpreted that style guide through an internal lens that is just there.

When I watch other people’s work I see “a style” all the time. And lots of styles that I’d like to emulate. As a creator, what I really want to do is push myself in the direction of certain styles that feel to me, in fact, like “a style”. To go beyond my default, and to really envision a new style, see it in my mind, and make it happen on screen.

Hopefully the DNA mutates and recombines, and style evolves.

What about you? Do you have a style that just sort of happened? Is it part of your DNA, or learned? Any tips on pushing beyond the default?

– Mathew

---