The C-word

Collaboration. Duh.

The idea behind collaboration is an interesting one.

Cleese’s quote provides us with some depth and reason, and his statement very much fits in with the “two heads is better than one” cliché.  Granted, the greatest of works, especially with tasks as gargantuan as films/modern media artefacts, are all products of high-level collaboration and coordination.  Egotistical battles about creative decisions may be one thing, but, any lone man will find it difficult to create high quality films on a yearly basis.

For quite a number of people (myself included from time to time), working with others is a nightmare.  Conflicting schedules and failure to understand or see what the other person is thinking make up some of the banes of this process.  It can be long, dreary and extremely volatile at times.  Nonetheless, the process rests on an open mind and a readiness to accept an alternate standpoint and view – not everything that you may come up with is considered amazing, and that’s okay, because it’s what the others are there for.  If done correctly, it breathes life and a multi-faceted dimension into the work, making it less one-sided and more a harmonious symphony of different ideas.

The past weeks have been laden with discussion about screenwriting, world building and dialogue and each of these exercises have involved heavy collaboration with our peers.  For example, the story exercise where we had to quickly brainstorm a scenario and capture it through photographs was both invigorating and a pronounced peer-involved activity.  Without a doubt, there were elements of conflict – wary, passive aggressive discussions about where or how to approach the task.   Here, compromise was the key – cull certain ideas to make way for what the collective believes is the most correct choice of action.  In our instance, we demoed numerous places around the university in an effort to find one that exuded a sombre, silent tone.  The decision to utilise a corridor found in the Art/Design building only came after having gone through a slew of ideas prior, a process which involved suggestion, reasoning and the occasional, but much needed rebuttal.

The larger the group, the more difficult it can be to manage – many Hollywood blockbuster screenwriters dabble in pairs like Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman and even directors double up (see Joe & Anthony Russo, and Joel & Ethan Coen).  High quality collaboration is extremely beneficial, but often less is more, with smaller and more robust groups retaining a better balance of ideas and functionality.

It is difficult, and nigh impossible especially within a given time frame to incorporate every single idea into a single work.

Let’s just differentiate this for a second – collaboration is by no means incorporating every single idea the team’s individual members suggest into the final product.  If done as a way to ‘please’ and satisfy other members in a vain struggle to avoid any major conflict, the artefact ends up losing meaning, becoming a directionless, unclear amalgamation.  This becomes a joint project no longer.

So, in closing, a ‘collab’ is the product of every member within a contained group equally contributing, shaping, compromising and questioning.  It is by no means a pretty and scratch-free process, but more often than not the action leads to a piece of work greater than the sum of parts placed into it.