Debbie Sharp points out a lot of similarities in her article for the July/August issue of Museum, “Blockbusters and Flops: What Can They Teach Us About Exhibit Development.” Debbie is a one-time movie producer turned interpretive planner, giving her a unique perspective.

So what can they teach us?

1. A solid foundation is vital. Movies and exhibit designs should both be driven by the story, not the other way around. This is why we begin every design project by developing a central theme and a content outline before we ever start sketching.

2. Dramatic openers engage visitors. The author writes that she always gravitated towards scripts with clever openers-they kept her interested in the rest of the script. Similarly, hooking museum visitors with an awesome entrance experience can make a huge impact on how engaged they will be throughout the exhibit.

3. You have to edit, edit, edit. As the author described the process of cutting down scenes to leave only the ones that really move the story forward, it reminded me a lot of writing for exhibits. No matter how clever or interesting something is, if it is not vital to the story it has to go. Just like movies can’t be five hours long, you can’t write a 1,000 word exhibit label.

4. Different media should be used to tell different stories. The author writes that dialogue sets the tone for a movie, but shouldn’t be used “to describe a character, background story, or event.” Similarly, exhibits should never rely on graphic panels to tell every story.

So how similar are movies and exhibits, really? The articles sites the difference in the tools available for storytelling-movies are restricted to a passive, audiovisual medium while exhibits have a lot more freedom. But the fundamental difference probably comes down to intent. Sure, there are a lot of movies out there that try to make a difference or provoke a conversation. But there are a whole lot more that offer pure entertainment and little else. Interpretive exhibits are intended to provoke and inspire, to connect visitors to significant stories and places, and ultimately to achieve the goals of interpretive sites-whether that involves preserving a fragile ecosystem, creating future scientists, or spreading awareness of a tragic historical event.

Can you think of other major differences and similarities? Should exhibit designers utilize more time-tested cinematic techniques, such as flashbacks and suspense-building?