The problem with amateur directors

author	subject: The problem with amateur directors
Naanan (original message) View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 7:37:35 PM So I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why with the advent of all the modern tech (24P, great 3 chip cameras, etc..) why do amateur films look so bad. I think I have found the answer. I am noticing that new directors (usually kids that have great equipment and no guidance)shoot for the shot and not the edit or he storyn. So many times I see these overblown crane shots, glidecam shots, all that stuff. I see a "artistic" shot at an awkward to say the least angle that does nothing but distract from the story. I rarely see mundane shots that are chosen for the smoothness of the edit or the needs of the story. They are all just shooting for the shot, every shot needs to be something "wow". I wish these guys would watch a movie here and there and notice that usually even tarantino is just getting the standard wide establishing then the varying CU shots on dialouge then a few new estab shots and a exit med shot. You must know the rules before you break them. Just look at the depth of discussion on these boards, I rarely see "when should I cut to the CU?" or "how do I properly compose an establishing shot". All I ever see is "anyone know how to build a robotic pan and tilt head for my 50 foot counterweighted free floating and steady cam jib arm with the makeshift plasma monitor and homemade surround sound headphones, oh yea how can I put that on a dolly made from space age skateboard wheels and PVC pipe". I think that is all the evidence that one needs. You wont go anywhere until you can make something that doesn't scream "I am a big techy that can be troubled with things like lighting, composition, and real actors". Sorry for the rant, I just want to know if I am the only one that feels this way and has come to this conclusion. Or maybe it's just a mood.
Ares995 View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 8:03:17 PM I'm with you. All I ever see is technical gizmo speak and nothing about real subject matter: literature, philosophy, psychology etc. etc. People talk about creating beautiful or amazing images but of what? Nothing in particular it seems.

Bob Hart View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 10:09:14 PM Maybe there be very many who would gladly read such posts and learn much they do not know. But who shall stand up from among the throng and propagate such information and discussion?? The knowing is oft in the doing but the doing must of necessity be the product of the knowing. Okay the ball rolls, who shall kick it back first? --- Continuity ---- Is it entirely the domain of a small quiet person with a polaroid on strap from neck and a clipboard with pen on string or does the director carry some serious responsibility here too?? I'm here to learn.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 10:18:02 PM Ideally your set should have a line producer whos responsibility at the no to low budget range is to make sure that the whole crew is realizing the vison of the Exec. Producer and Director. Now this all presupposes that there is some level of pre vis being done. In reality there is no pre vis done and directors go out shooting willy nilly trying to get a 25 to 1 coverage ratio. Pre vis can be as simple as detailed shot lists but should be a story board of some kind. The line producer is making sure that your DP and Key Grip are on task. The director should be concerned with one thing and one thing only, the performance's of the actors. Hitch never looked through a viewfinder or a monitor his quote was "why would I need to look at it, I've already seen it and put it on the boards". That is the SOLE job of the director once principle photography has started. Well that and Action and Cut. PA's should be covering the slate. Thats my volley, lets see where this goes.
Scott Spears View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 10:37:37 PM Story. Story. Story. The director serves the story, not the other way around. John Sayles is a great american filmmaker. Is a whiz with the camera? No. He just tells interesting stories in a meat and potatos style. Also, film school and most filmmaking books don't talk about how to deal with actors. Young directors treat them like cameras, feed in the raw stock (in this case the words from the script instead of film) and press the button by yelling action. They fail to realize that the camera needs oiling and calibtared, so the performances are not fine tuned. They know cool shots, but not how to engage the audience with real characters and situations. I was guilty as anyone of doing this when I directed in school. Scott
Paul Stamat View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:02:50 PM I would agree. Directors have so much to do with whether or not a story turns out to be wonderful or average simply by the details that they pay attention to. Details are important. Even the mundane ones. But with that said - you have to let the new directors (like anyone in life) make their own mistakes. Maybe even at the cost of the final product. Most of the time they're not going to understand what you're telling them until after they've made their mistakes anyway. And that's just how it goes.
astralpictures View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:08:01 PM Directing actors isn't always the only concern of a director, and it shouldn't be. If telling a story is the most important thing, then why don't directors just write? If actors and story are most important, why not stick to directing or filming theatre? Because film is a VISUAL and unique medium and we must be concerned with the way a film looks and rolls across the screen as well as what is being told. Directing actors is important, but directing the mis-en-scene is just as important. Shouldn't a director be concerned with the photographic elements as well because they also portray the story, ideas, mood, and tone of the film just as much as the actor. Filming a "cool shot" just for that purpose may not always be in the best interest of the film, but filming a cool shot that is relative to the movie can work. When we remember movies, we remember the images as much as the story and characters, if not more. Remember when the shark jumped out of the water, or there was this one part where Major Kong rode the a-bomb to the ground... we remember things visually and therefore a director should be concerned with the way a movie looks just as much as the DP is. The director needs to direct the whole crew, IMO, not just the actors. This is where the auteur theory comes in, if anyone subscribes to it. Hitchcock has his style, yes, but not every great director worked like Hitch. Look at Kubrick, for example, who actually operated the camera himself a number of times to get the shot he wanted. Bergman is another example of someone who was concerned with the image and his famous filming of the female face. If it wasn't shot right, his ideas and explorations would be lost. Some directors concentrate on story, some on actors, some on images, some on ideas, and many a combination of these. Focusing on one over the other doesn't automatically make a person less of a director; it must be determined in the final work I think.
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:15:41 PM Here here. I agree. I can't stomach a lot of the crap out there. This is a frank statement and I'm sure people will get all huffy about it, but, yeah, I feel the same way. Story is KEY. If you don't have it, you're just shooting to make something look "Cool!" "Sweet!" "Nice!" or "Slick!" Sayles uses cinema to tell a story while a lot of indie shlubs use film/DV to be cool, hip and like Tarantino. I agree. The ideology of indie film is waning. Very few posts here involve topics that discuss mis en scene, mood, character, thematic sublties, etc. I know for some these subjects are a bore that don't involve bloody zombies or psychotic cops, but jeez... let's delve a little, eh? Fill your movies with all the flashy jib shots and AVID post wipes you can. I'd rather take in an old Hitchcock flick or something with story substance. 'nuff said. (leaping off my soap box) * Danny, funny you mention Hitchcock. I posted this just as you posted.
astralpictures View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:18:06 PM Bah! This is Chris, NOT Danny!
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:19:08 PM Ha! I see Astralpictures and automatically think it's Danny. Well put Chris!
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:19:37 PM Now think of all the fun you can have. ;)
astralpictures View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:21:34 PM It's okay... I'm a lot cooler than Danny though. Shhhh!
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:22:34 PM Basically, I feel that it comes down to this one question: What the F.U.C.K. is the filmmaker trying to say with their movie? If it's (shrug) "I dunno. Just thought it would be cool." FU. Next please.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/10/2005 11:45:08 PM I think that there are a few brilliant people in the world that can direct the actors from behind the camera, but I don't think even 10% of the cream of the crop can. I think that the directors job in directing the shot is in the Pre Vis stage. A god DP can take a story board and treat it like an idea plan to produce a visual masterpeice. It is intersting that some of you have a more hands on feel. While that is great if you can do it, I have a tendency to blame that attitude for the majority of the short falls of indie DV films. I'm not saying that you can't do it well, but most directors I have run across that aren't paying the bills by directing unconciously put the actors performance at the bottom of the list. I find that most of the shorts I am directed to look at have absolutely horid acting, I don't mean bad, I'm talking friends and family acting. There are so many 'trained' actors all over the country who love to do it that there is no excuse for the friends and family gig. Actors are the instruments of a directors story telling much the same as words are the instruments of writing. In my estimation the camera is to the analogy what the word processor is to writing. It is a tool best left to those that can "type" well. Now that statement is going to stir up the muck isn't it.
indycine.com View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:10:35 AM What we are doing is storytelling, no matter which medium. Techniques and equipment are different in novel writing, radio plays, stage plays, movies and video. Techniques and equipment are not the point of storytelling, involving the audience is. If you're telling a story, and have to shake the audience every couple of minutes to remind them how cool you are, with a cool shot, you're just stroking your own ego, you're not into storytelling. We all go through that, when we start filmmaking, doing the shot for the shot. As we get more proficient, we learn. If we're lucky, we grow to be confident in our technique, the simpler the better. Which is why articles on "what camera is best?" don't excite me any more. Just not into that. I'm into storytelling. Just so you know, I see nothing wrong with being "amateur" in most things. "Amateur" means to do something for the LOVE of it.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:17:23 AM Just so you know, I see nothing wrong with being "amateur" in most things. "Amateur" means to do something for the LOVE of it. I suppose I was using it as a derogatory term, I am a semi-professional director, which is another way of saying semi-amateur. I get paid to direct but not the projects that I love. So well put indycine. It just gets a bit frustrating, watching short after short of "wow" shots that just leave me yawning.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:26:50 AM Hey guys, go chek out sonnyboo's Horrors Of War 'trailer'. I was blown away, I just want to make sure it isn't just the hour that I am up. Fantastic stuff. Make special note of the foley and sound design. WOW.
indycine.com View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 1:27:02 AM Naanan, I suppose we're agreeing vehemently. I know I agree with your original post. It's awful how many filmmakers think it's all about equipment. Just saw another "camera rig" post on the main board, it clicks to a camera rig that looks like a wingless hang glider, with a $2k camera hanging on the end of it, supported by the cameraman's spine. It's a big lever, with the moment all focused on the small of the cameraman's back. Counterweight? Oh you mean that massive weight (must be, to balance so big a lever) that is driving my shoulders toward the center of the Earth. It makes my back hurt just to look at it. (If you put that on an animal's back, they'd arrest you for cruelty.) Next question: Why do guys who can't spell "crane" design them?
Darkone8921 View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 4:29:00 AM Ok. I think I understand what you all mean. I've had those questions to ask myself like, "Do you use wide shots in DV only for establishing shots?" or "How do I let the mood and real content of the scene dictate the shot itself?" or even "How do I get an actor to feel and portray an emotion authentically?". But to be honest with you I didn't go to school for film and really thought It would show too much by asking these questions. Some people are less apt to answer question of someone who's not on their level. Also, in all honesty you would have to read my script and we would have to talk about for hours on end to even come close to anything that isn't every other wanna ba indie film. I just thought the best teacher was experience. Maybe i'm looking at it!$%*backwards.. What do you all think?
Guy McConnell View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 6:31:17 AM Patrick, do you have any work up online? Just wondering, becaause when I checked your profile I didn't see any link or credits. If you do I'd like to check it out.
Scott Spears View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 7:47:30 AM Chris, You said, "Directing actors isn't always the only concern of a director, and it shouldn't be." I'm not saying that. I think that most directors start out building the technical skills and making cool shots which is good, but without good storytelling skills and knowing out to get good performances out of actors. Directing actors is not mutually exclusive of cool shoots. You can have both, but many young directors only think of cool shots and not actors. Just my observation of working with many directors over the last 20 years and 40 plus films. Scott
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:04:57 AM Guy, unfortunately I don't have anything up on line. I bought web space but I have been too busy to do anything with it. So I really can't pu tmy money where my mouth is so to speak. I may be able to E-Mail you some files (a trailer or two) but they are my first two films and are naturally suffering, however I don't think I've ever gone for the wow shots. Now that may not be because I didn't want to, I made my first short on a crappy sony dig8 single chip camera, but I learned a ton. As for the rest of this thread, I have another question. Where did you all learn the "art" of film making. Film school, books, mentors? I think that instead of complaining (I know... I started it) maybe we should provide refrences for the 'amatuer directors' that really want to learn but have no idea where to start. Guy when I watched your trailer I saw something that I usually don't see in amatuer trailers, composition. Now if you can get the feel for the cut you will be getting to the heart of it. I'll start it out here, this is where I started my educational journey. Directing: Shot for shot, by Katz Lighting for Digital Video (I wish I could remember the authors name but that books cover is tattered and worn off and I don't have it on me right now, any one know the book I'm talking about?) From Reel to Deal, by Dov Simens (great all around "do this" book, aimed mainly at producers but that is who directors work for isn't it) I think we all wish that we could go to film schol but I know people that have 60 grand in loans from NYU and are working as admins and interns 3 years later. It isn't realistic for all of us.
Guy McConnell View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:23:45 AM Patrick, Cool, let me know when you've got somestuff up. I don't consider myself an amatuer Director anymore as I've directed 2 features and 5 shorts. Here is my imdb listing, although it only lists my feature from last year. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1642907/ I consider myself an indie now. However like everyone else here, yourself included, I am always learning and trying to make myself better. Shot composition is something I've been working on since I started making films (5 years ago) and I feel I get better with each film I produce.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:37:16 AM Hey Guy, thats quite the acomplishment, congrats. I am currently trying to pay the bills by shooting narrative training vids (kind of like after school specials). Not the most exciting thing in the world, but man they don't let you get away with anything. I am going to start production on a feature in March. I am also spending alot of time trying to get involved with community theater in my area. I think one of the best ways to learn how to direct is to be directed. I have found that taking some acting classes and doing some stage work has allowed me to relate to actors in a way that makes my job WAY easier.
Velusion View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:38:33 AM I know what you mean about the amateur director who strives for attention getting shots but, to be fair, Hollywood is guilty of the same thing. In the 70s, the camera was mostly static. Then came subtle camera moves. Now, the mentality is to have the camera as weightless as possible. To me, it's just film makers trying to show off the fact that they CAN move the camera as far and as fast as they want. I think there is room for creative camera moves but not when it interferes with the story or brings you out of the moment. The Evil Dead is known for its creative camera angles. So are Paul Anderson movies such as Boogie Nights and Magnolia. These are two examples of using unique camera angles/moves to enhance the story... Other films use these kinds of dynamic camera moves because of the "keeping up with the jones'" mentality. Hollywood has that mentality. New directors/film makers always try to emulate what Hollywood is doing. It is thought that if you can mimic the techniques of Hollywood then your film will somehow be entitled to instant respect. Unfortunately, it seems to backfire on the new film maker more often than it helps. Face it, a bad movie with a lot of crazy camera moves is still a bad movie. There is a group in Florida right now who are trying to make a movie and they seem more concerned with coming up with strange little gadgets to hook their camera onto than finding good actors.. In my opinion, this kind of mentality will ultimately lead to failure or, at best, a not very good movie....just my thoughts..
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:52:48 AM I think the folly is that all those gimicky shots just jump out at you and scream - hey, look at this cool shot! - and not "Didn't this shot work well while keeping the story in mind?" If you catch TV shows like extreme sports or even the reality shows there are always a bunch of trendy angles and gimmicky shots thrown everywhere. which, I estimate, are geared for short attention span audiences, music video MTV viewers. The flashier the better. I am NOT against using interesting camera techniques and moving the camera around. But it's really sad when all someone's movie is is a collection of crazy - and often poorly composed and lit shots edited together without the slightest consideration of solid storytelling evident. I just can't cut people a lot of slack and say - Isn't that great! Wow! Nice job! I have to be critical while being constructive. I have always offered honest reactions to amatuer/indie work out there. Not all of it is great, not all of it sucks and not all of it is my cup of tea - but what impresses me most is when you can really pick up on a sense of intention, a sense of depth. I feel that a lot of indie flicks out there lack true indie conviction.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 8:52:51 AM Actually those people, if they can be "controlled" can make great DP's if they have some sense of shot composition. The Evil Dead's whole mentality is enhanced by those shots, but I can't say they really helped the film be better. You will notice that Rami is rarely doing them now and if he does it almost looks like a shout out to his original fans (i.e. the DOC OC tentacles in SPIDER MAN 2). Paul Anderson, well this guy is my idol. He is the pentultimate story teller. Lets look at Magnolia, that push in through the door, those steady cam shots, he uses the movement to make you feel like you are there. His movements let the story happen and never attract attention to themselfs. The most heinous thing in modern hollywood is the 'shaky cam', good lord. Greengrass took what would have been a great film (bourne 2) and made me sea sick. My poor 62 year old father who loved the first one couldn't sit through the second one. They say it is for the purplse of creating tension, WHAT??? Hitch could create more tension with a long steady shot or a slow dolly shot (sure Hermann was building most of that tension with his brilliant scores) than greengrass had in his whole film. Great points man.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 9:02:30 AM Darkone, I just went back and reread your post. I think most of us would love to answer your questions. I think that you will find that if you ask a legit question that peaks the interest of real filmamkers you will be swimming in the depth of information that you will get. I don't think that any of the "big guys" on this board (I don't include myself in that statement) would be more than happy to impart info to someone who really wants to be a story teller. I think that we are all frustrated by the 'mechanics' that are trying to make 'movies'. There is an age old addage that states 'you learn the most when you have to teach'. Get those questions out there, I know I have a ton to learn.
SONNYBOO View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 9:07:52 AM Naanan, I don't know if your original hypothesis is "the" problem, as there are countless problems. That's why they are amature directors working they're way towards being professional directors. I agree with the whole point of "story is king" because that's far more important than fancy camera angles. But STORY is such a preferential thing, no one can truly say what is best, as it differs for every viewer. I'd say go into an amature movie with lower expectations, as it is "amature" and they are learning. No one complains about the 7th grade play "the performances were unrealistic". Some people are just beginning, so cut some slack and let them learn.
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 9:11:24 AM yeah. Bourne Supremacy was god awful. I think there was something in the contract that said you can't hold a shot for more than 1/50th of a second. that's why I feel Ronin had the same European feel to it, but had a much better grasp on character, composition, story, and overall mood. but I shouldn't digress. back to the thread!
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 9:37:51 AM I guess I would add that everyone starts somewhere. And as soon as you put your work out there for people to see, that work is fair game for criticism - good, bad or indifferent. I do cut people slack, but at the same time I also feel it's imperative to learn what works and what doens't. That is subjective I know. At the same time this entire industry is based on personal taste - well, the taste of the multitudes really. So when this board and other boards are flooded with a mudslide of amateur, indie, or pro films it's impossible to take everything in using the same set of criteria. I have put a lot of work together over the years and a lot of it is rubbish and I admit that. I guess I just feel that whem newbie directors - AND established ones, too - put their work out there for consideration without preparing themselves for the negative criticism as well as the praise, it creates this feeling like "No one likes my work. It sucks. I shouldn't be doing this." instead of " Okay, I understand what you mean. Afterall, I am making this for an audience. Maybe I'll go back to the drawing board and refine it some. Next time I'll do better." Instead what I find is a lot of amateur/indie folks constantly defending their work as is, face value, without really digesting the reactions or using them at all. How many posts have we seen where people put something up and ask "Critique my work. Let me know what you think." only to defend their clip/trailer/whatever with a myriad of reasons to back up why they did what they did and that's that. I think Vince's threads for Kisses and Caroms is a great example of someone who put his work out there and let folks enjoy it AND tear it apart and he kept going back to the drawing board the editing room and making it better. It just takes thick skin that's all. Take the hit on the chin and move on. Improvement will come with time. Okay. I gotta head out for work. Catch you folks later. Peter, great job with the Horros of War trailer. really looks well done. Guten tag!
astralpictures View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 9:57:10 AM "Techniques and equipment are different in novel writing, radio plays, stage plays, movies and video. Techniques and equipment are not the point of storytelling, involving the audience is." Techniques and equipment aren't the point of storytelling, but they are the tools, obviously, and are different from writing and radio. Film is a visual medium, and all I'm saying is that we need to pay attention to the images just as much as the story because without no images, we'd have no story. I'm not saying that going for a "cool" shot should be the only goal of any filmmaker, but going for a shot that performs the function you're looking for is key. Maybe our ideas of what's cool exactly are confused. Since Hitch is an example we're using, let's take some of his well known shots. The knife striking at the screen is "cool" to me and does a whole lot more than tell a story. Hitch admits that he did the shot in order to scare the audience, that is to create an emotion through unique visuals and editing. If it was all about the story of Marion getting murdered, then he could've just shown it in a medium shot and the story would still be the same. But he did it with flair and created one of the most famous scenes in history. This is why I'm saying that story isn't the only important thing. How many imitators have there been after Hitch who remade this scene? How many of them had the visual talent and know-how to do it as affectively as Hitch? But it's the same story, which is a good one, so shouldn't those imitators be just as good? Look at other examples of Hitch; a plane flying at the audience, birds flocking in the background, a shadowy figure ascending the staircase... all done for a reaction that story alone can't create. Without these "cool" shots, there'd be no suspense in a Hitchcock movie. The same can be said for many other well-known directors who use the format to their advantage. If we only wanted story, we could have movies like The Princess Bride just read to us the whole way through. But we're moviemakers, concerned with moving images. Using our tools is all that we have to get these stories, ideas, and images onto the screen, so we need to know how to use them. I'm not saying that we should be concerned all the time with the new dv camera or the cheap camera rig, but we should know about lenses, exposure control, DOF, different angles and shots, and other technical terms. Once these are learned, then concerns such as how to rig my camera to get neat shots shouldn't be as important. With this I agree and have discussed this point on here before. So can we agree that a movie not only tells a story, but it also can and should create an emotional reaction from the audience, and also maybe provide some ideas or thinking from the audience at the same time. Not thinking necessarily like Memento where you are trying to discover what's going on, but just generally considering what exactly is being presented to us. Sorry for jumping around with points. My mind is bouncing today.
SONNYBOO View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 10:05:40 AM Mr. Pixel is both wise & sexy....
ter@rufus3.com View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 10:22:24 AM Being a fairly inexperienced indie director, I flinched when reading your post, knowing most of it is true and I myself have been guilty of the tech-centric film wave. However I must also say it's not a coincidence that when you have an online web community, this is the traffic you will generate. There is a ton of traditional resources when it comes to film theory, public library, film schools, amazon.com, but these resources won't teach you how to make a skateboard dolly or design a jib. So the technically affluent, web-savvy indie filmmaker finds indieclub and affronts his question accordingly. I agree that often times young directors get caught up in the shot ... also realizing that this is part of the learning process, is it not? The newer generation has to learn in the reverse order of the previous ... whereas it was traditional to master shot technique, storytelling, and composition with your Super 8 as not to waste film, and later after developing your directing chops, learn the equipment of the trade. It's now a different story where kids are growing up with essentially professional equipment, having to learn through harsh criticism why their after-effect'ed masterpiece is completely trite. All in all, there's probably a reason why things have shifted, and the best we can do is offer what insights we have to those who might find them useful.
Johnny Wu View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 10:27:01 AM Personally, I've run into many crap films and it's not because of the story or such, but because of the poor planning involved. When a person shoot a movie, they tend (in my personal experience with people I've met here in town and ther cities) to rush and do their movies (shooting in any format) and then realized later of all the obstacles during post, then realized also that they should've done a better pre-production planning. Story can be good (not talking in geneal but some scripts) if a team of crew really put their hearts into it, if they know what they can do and what they can't. Many 'artistic' students in town tend to go for the 'cool' style that is right now in Hollywood and then realized they can't accomplish it due to lack of planning... But from all these bad films that come out, the filmmaker learn to get better (unless he/she doesn't care to improve themselves). In fact, I have seen many who are improving dramatically, and I know at one time or the other, we all have been making crap movies :)
Note On View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 11:33:51 AM When word processors came out, more people thought they were writers. They weren't. When home MIDI studios came out, more people thought they were musicians. They weren't. When home DNA sequencing arrives, more people will think they're genetic engineers. Talent and skill are independent of gear.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 11:58:42 AM That is truly 'Note On', or 'spot on'. Great point. I hope that when DNA sequencing arrives in our homes the first ones are better than the first vid cameras or word processers!!! "oh I just gave my baby a fourth arm, I mean just because it is coming out of his nose isn't that bad, he can still pick stuff up with it right?".
Mike Conway View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:05:18 PM Okay, some of you can diss about threads on cranes and stabilizers and why the designer would misspell the word, crane. Maybe, you should know something about Liza Trainer. She's a dyslexic genius, literally. I don't know what her movies are like, but she is making them, as well as the carmounted cranes and other gadgets used for shooting. Here are some excerpts from a New Times article: Trainer suffers from dyslexia and attention-deficit disorder. She has never become fully literate; to this day, she asks how to spell such simple words as our and sure. But that isn't to say Trainer is dumb. She has an uncanny ability to build anything from, well, anything. That talent sparked her first foray into the fringe art world in the mid-'90s, when she became something of a local curiosity. For several years, she made a living by constructing seven-foot-tall robots, some with televisions for heads, using scrap metal and junked car parts. They sold for as much as $10,000 apiece to art studios and private collectors. In fact, after seeing the robots, John Naimi, the former owner of Button South in Hallandale Beach, commissioned Trainer to build a seven-foot-tall, 800-pound robotic Tyrannosaurus Rex. In addition to such monstrous constructions,Trainer built intelligent machines with household functions. One of them was a self-roving vacuum cleaner that stood about two feet tall and had a tire on each side. Its only fault? It couldn't empty the bag. Her first step into the moviemaking industry came in 2000, when she landed a job at United Mask and Party in Sebring, which custom-built props for movies and haunted houses. The best of her work there, Trainer says, was a skeleton that lifted itself from a coffin and then opened its mouth, pouring blood over the bones. The difficulty came in creating a figure that could make a bloody mess in a scene, then be quickly readied for another one. Trainer's idea: cover the bones in Scotchgard, a chemical used on upholstery. The artificial blood dripped cleanly off the skeleton and pooled in a pan at the bottom of the coffin for use minutes later. "It was awesome," Trainer says proudly. She landed steady contract work with Banyan Air Service at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, painting sensitive jet panels. The highly specialized jobs are often last minute, but they pay well. Those earnings were used to bankroll her film company, LHM (Liza's Home Movies) Productions, and purchase equipment. Cameras litter the living room of Trainer's apartment turned studio. A 50-inch wide-screen television sits in the living room in front of four rows of theater-style seats that she built by hand using wood and futon cushions. A blast screen -- a weighed-down Plexiglas panel intended to protect the camera during rough-and-tumble shoots -- sets in the corner. Homemade prop firearms, ranging from shotguns to 9mm pistols complete with safeties and removable clips, hang on the east and south blood-red walls. As Damian Hyde, one of the film students who work with Trainer, describes it: "There's enough fake guns in here for a small army." On the other side of the loft, behind the kitchen, Trainer last summer constructed an editing room with three televisions and three computer monitors, a complete sound system and equalizer, and four computers equipped with movie-editing software. Among Trainer's first projects was a black-and-white music video for local singer-songwriter Beverly McClellan. It featured busty French actress Agathe Retornaz running through an alley and over a parked car while dressed in heels as McClellan sits at a piano, singing about a girl on the run. The juxtaposition of the feminine Retornaz and the androgynous McClellan was striking. Trainer made the video for McClellan in exchange for an agreement that the filmmaker could use the song in upcoming movies. "When you're working with no budget and improvising, it's all about talent," Trainer explains. "And that's the point. It makes no difference if you're making a film for $4 or $4 million. You either have talent or you don't." Liza has a talent that I really admire. I think there could be far worse threads on the board than technical threads about cranes and stabilizers. While I started making Super 8mm films, 25 years ago, much of what I've learned about digital videomaking has come from my past year and a half on IndieClub. I already knew the ins and outs of editing and story devices such as Macguffins and Red Herrings. What I needed was some technical advice, so I was paying close attention to all the DVX100 and editing app threads. A lot of people on IndieClub are just getting started, or like myself, taking that next step. Microphones, lights and technology are fairly important. That's why I post on where to get Britek lights with softboxes, or why I have different microphones, or where to get a greenscreen and how to use it. A lot of people are looking for something to give their little project that big production look. I'm sorry, but if we were all writers, most of our ideas would stink. Because a lot of us are directors we have some additional tools to make those stories seem better. That might mean overusing certain techniques. One of my favorite directors, Hitchcock, may not have needed to look through a lens, but he had a DP and a crew. On my latest feature, I set up my lights, camera and mics, because there usually isn't a crew. I use some friends, and my wife, to act in roles, because sometimes they are all I've got. Then again, my wife kicks butt on most actors. :>) A lot of movies, on IndieClub, are made this way. Having a good story is one thing, but communicating it well, as a director, is an art. You will rarely find both in the same movie, at this level. Then again, Hitchcock said something like, "it's not the picture that you are painting, but how you paint it." Macguffins and suspense were his tools. Liza Trainer has hers. All of us have our creative strongpoints.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:16:32 PM You are right there could be far worse threads. And by the way I think that making fun of anyones spelling is pretty dispicable, I am probably the worst offender and my typing is almost as bad as my spelling. My point in starting this thread is not that the toys are bad, it is that I see time and again, a bad film where you can tell that an inordinate ammount of time was spent setting up a shot to be cool when in reality it was just distracting. That time could be spent on lighting (which in these instances is poor at best, non existant at worst), or directing the performance of the actors (which in these instances is usually left to the sensibilities of someone that has never even heard of Stanislofsky let alone read any of it). Lisa in my short time on this board has gone out of her way to help me get what I need across and that is great. If she can make great cranes and equipment that is great as well, the fault is with those that use them inappropriately.
Mike Conway View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 12:34:52 PM Most of the indie movies I watch suffer from too much handheld camera and bad acting than ones with beautiful shots and bad acting. I would have remembered a good carmount shot or even the excessive use of one. :>) Of course, I agree that focus needs to be put on actors, stories and lighting. That is easily accomplished in a movie with a sizeable budget, where a DP and professional actors can make even a sucky director look good. However, if you can pull off a movie with good acting, story and lighting, at this level, you're probably very talented.
MotionCity View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 1:05:08 PM Hey Mike thanks for the insight into Liza Trainer. All I can say is, "I didn't know that." Yes this board does tend to get into the geeky details of how to build a dolly or even which camera to use. Why don't we discuss performance and story more? Because it's HARD. To paraphrase a quote, "writing about performance is like dancing about architecture." I don't think a board like this is as conducive to analyzing a characters internal and external journey as it is to spelling out a recipe to build a crane out of PVC.
MrBobTV View My Profile	Posted: 1/11/2005 4:49:29 PM This is good. I need to hear this. I've been too preoccupied with all the technical bullcrap for my shoot; like building a steadycam, a dolly, and designing "cool" looking shots. Yes, I DO need that stuff in my film; but I also need to keep the story in mind while I'm planning the shoot. And I have to "shoot to edit". Gotta remember that. I don't wanna have to go back and reshoot a bunch of shots that I didn't anticipate. Keep up this exchange of ideas...I may not have much to add, but I'm sure there's folks here like me who are getting plenty out of this.
Darkone8921 View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 3:28:50 AM How exactly do you "shoot to edit"? Also, how do I find the true meaning of the scene and only shoot that? Or is that even a good idea?
Shadowman View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 5:35:24 AM Thanks Mike. Didn't it all start with a technological Wow... some horse moving around and people got all excited. There's always experimentation of some kind. Nothing wrong with wow shots or standard filler shots. If someone is still filling their cup with wow shots after years of moviemaking, then I would assume that's the way they like it... let 'em have their fun. Some moviemakers are into it for the art, some for the business and some just for fun. The ones that are serious will always strive to evolve towards that place that they want to be. I'm not a Hollywood guy, nor do I want to be. I'm an artist (means I can express myself however I want) and I can enjoy what I'm doing. Sometimes I do enjoy playing a good hand of poker though... play my cards right and reap in some winnings. Darkone - good questions!! I'm not up on the technical jargon, but hopefully someone that is can answer.
mjenkins180 View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 7:03:07 AM I'll take a stab at "shoot to edit". Think about he editing process and what and editor needs to make his/her life happy. Think about how many times you have sat down and tried to link a couple of clips and said to yourself: "man, if I only had the subject completely obscure the screen here"..., or: "if I only had shot more cutaways".. or "if I had waited only 5 more seconds to call cut on this take". Part of it is coverage, but it should be smart coverage from an editor's POV, not just a whole bunch of cool shots. How do the shots relate to each other and how can you shoot them so they will flow once they get to the edit bay.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 8:26:14 AM Shadow man, I understand what you are saying. An artist is someone who can create something that's aesthetic qualities far out weight it's functional purpose. Therefore it would be difficult to produce an 'artistic' wrench. I have found that this simple statement does the best job of simplifing the very complex (and totaly subjective) question of what is art. Unfortunately there are people that think that they can use the word art to justify the fact that they don't know what they are doing. On top of all that, the average person these days has more money than brains and thinks that they will find the next new 'artist' and they buy the crap that is being sold as art, this only worsens the problem for people that use the term art as an excuse. Now a film has a complete functionality, to tell a story (I know some don't and aren't intended to but I think that despite the fact that it is a masterpeice and I love the man, 2001 is a snore fest as far as a narrative goes despite it's asthetic beauty). My point being that if the functionality of the film is being obscured by a bunch of distracting wow shots that have no purpose outside of the shots ability to gratify the film maker, then it can't even approch art. Lets look at a painting. It's purpose is to stir ones emotions, make one think, or take up space on a wall and 'go with' the 'fung shuie' of the room. Now if all you do is sit there and look at it skeptically and say 'my kid makes better art in his doody 3 times a day' then you have to ask has the 'art' trancended its functionality. In my opinion (and I do give it freely and usually unsolicited) you can't approach 'art' until you have trancended somethings functionality. But..... every one has a diffrent value of 'art' and unfortunately that value is substituted for an excuse to justify ignorance. Just make sure that you aren't guilty of this. Good luck, thanks for your contribution.
Note On View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 8:49:42 AM > how do I find the true meaning of the scene What a great question. If you're asking it, I would suggest you back up to a different question before you try to answer that one. That question would be: In order to tell the story I want to tell, what scenes do I need? Once you know that answer (and it does take work and probably a trip or two through confusion), then you will know the meaning of each scene--because you'll know exactly why it exists in the first place. You'll know the point it's trying to make. Then shoot in a way that gets that point across.
Shadowman View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 9:51:46 AM mjenkins180 and Note On - cool, thanks. Naanan - No problems. Actually, my tastes prefer a good interaction of varying shots. I have my own set of likes and dislikes. I was just giving a different perspective because I don't think anyones work, even in a general statement, should be put down for being what it is. A piece of work doesn't have to appeal to everyone, but it will find someone that thinks it is good for whatever reason. All a matter of personal taste. btw - ignorance is just not knowing something. What it is that is not known is open for interpretation.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 10:32:46 AM Shadow, that was exactly what I meant. People use the term artistic to justify the fact that they don't know the foundations of their medium. Their ignorance so to speak becomes stupidity because they get validation for what they consider to be 'art' and therefore never 'learn' the foundations. I know it is good to be a trailblazer and find new and innovative ways to do things, I would never want to discourage that behavior, but you have to have an idea as to why the 'right and accepted' ways of doing things are right and accepted before you try to find new and diffrent ways of doing them. It is some times refered to as reinventing the wheel and when amateurs are doing it it usually produces a Flintstones looking thing that won't roll very well. In other words know the rules before you try to break them, otherwise it will just look like you don't know what you are doing, or ignorance. Does this make sense? Sometimes I have a tendency to ramble....
Note On View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 10:45:13 AM I find it useful to ask why the current rules came into existence in the first place. I disagree with the idea that "you have to know the rules before you break them," but I do think you have to look at the materials you're working with (whether that's clay, words, images, notes, or anything else) and try to see them as clearly as you can. Most of the "rules" came into being because the materials we work with have certain inherent properties, and the rules allow them to be manipulated in ways that avoid dead ends and fatal problems. But that certainly doesn't mean there aren't other (or better) ways.
Shadowman View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 11:21:05 AM Yea, it seems that we're all on the same page, just different ways of saying it.
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 12:04:36 PM Most of the rules of filmamking came into existence because they allow the story to make sense to the viewer. However the METHODS of incorporating those rules has changed drastically throughout the years (mostly due to the sickening lack of attention spans today). The methods must change to keep it interesting, but the fundementals of the 'continuity' style are all valid and should really only be violated in extreme situations. Now please understand I am not refering to the "continuity style" of editing. Editing is an art form in and of it's self and Tarantino has taken time honored methods of destroying editing continuity to make his films exciting, as have Nolan and Noe. I have no problem with that. What I am trying to get across is 'don't have your leading actress deliver a heart wrenching line that is supposed to ruin the leading man by filming her saying it with a crane shot or a whirring steady cam dance, don't put the camera at an akward angle thus making the audience say 'what am I looking at' when they should be saying 'NO!!! DON'T SAY THAT, I AM INVESTED IN THESE CHARACTERS, THIS IS HEAVY'. Is this clear, as I have said before, I sometimes ramble.
danny pelletier View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 1:29:40 PM I'm not you, I'm ME!
mjenkins180 View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 9:07:27 PM Whaddya mean a wrench can't be made artistically? A wrench is the essence of the "form-follows-function" that would make even Louis Kahn smile. Say it with me- wrench. Ever notice that oil paints still have that unique smell. Now pick up a wrench, any wrench. Now take a whiff. Maybe you smell oil, maybe you smell soldering flux or pipe compound. The smell of that wrench, like the smell of an excellent wine, doesn't give you an aroma of oil, no, it gives you the smell of a place. Perhaps that place is a garage, maybe an airplane hanger, maybe a hardware store, or a basement or crawlspace- it's all dependent of the subjective nature of the wrench-holder. You have created a world in the holder's mind with a minimum of effort. Art. Art most sublime. (tongue firmly in cheek, even though I am partial to the sight of a finely-crafted wrench)
Bundleup View My Profile	Posted: 1/12/2005 9:19:39 PM When Speilberg was making Close Encounters (and feel free to correct me if I get some of this story wrong) he cast Francois Truffaut as one of the leads. I would assume they had a strong appreciation of each other's work, but Truffaut did say to him one day something along the lines of 'when you can make a movie (tell a story) without a crane and without a dolly, then you truly know how to tell a story.' Spielberg took this to heart when he made Schindler's List, and finally won an Oscar. The 'toys' we use can greatly elevate the dramatic feel of the story we are telling, but if I see another indie film with two people at a table and that camera constantly dollying in a circle around them, and you can see the editor struggling to keep the person who's line it is on camera, I'm gonna scream. I am one of the few directors I know who has college degrees in both Televsion/Film Production as well as Theatre. The camera and toys are a small part of directing, and are more in the realm of the D.P. What is covered in each shot IS the directors job. How those shots are composed for the editing room is the director's job. If you never understand editing, you can never understand film directing. Todd Wade www.theappointmentmovie.com
Shawn M View My Profile	Posted: 1/13/2005 3:39:33 PM "...this is where I started my educational journey. Directing: Shot for shot, by Katz Lighting for Digital Video (I wish I could remember the authors name but that books cover is tattered and worn off and I don't have it on me right now, any one know the book I'm talking about?)" Yeah, John Jackman's Lighting for Digital Video & Television. It's a great book, I also recommend Matters of Light and Dark by Ross Lowell. Thanks, Shawn
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/13/2005 4:47:51 PM John Jackman, thats what his name is. Thanks Shawn.
Note On View My Profile	Posted: 1/13/2005 5:05:54 PM And for those (like me) who couldn't deal with SHOT BY SHOT--and I'm not even sure why; I just couldn't get through a chapter--I very highly recommend THE FIVE C'S OF CINEMATOGRAPHY by Joseph V. Mascelli. I read it cover-to-cover twice and just sucked it straight into my brain. Useful in the extreme.
Bob Hart. View My Profile	Posted: 1/14/2005 5:14:04 AM I recently permitted myself an indulgence and allowed myself to spend AU$200 on a discounted course titled "Back to Basics" for people with directorial aspirations. I learned much, even though of necessity it was a truncated course. Part of the process was we were to shoot our own assignments, in my case I chose to do 1.5 pages of one of my own projects. We got to call upon the assistance of professionally trained actors of the Perth Actors' Collective and I drew two good people. They pretty much got the essence of what my characters were doing straight off. (Our W.A Academy of Performing Arts has produced some fine actors who are doing well in the industry.) I subsequently mentioned that I had an easy time of it.. The comment was raised that if a director and actors find themselves in a comfort zone straight away where it is felt the requirements are being met, then it is time to push the envelope to strive for something furthur and that remarkable things can emerge way and beyond the original intentions of all contributors to the project. Leastways this is my paraphrase of my recollections of the discussion. Bear in mind I am not all that bright in a classroom situation. Certainly my actor's interpretations and performances breathed new life into a scene which now appears to be more key than in my own writing of it I had envisaged it to be. - Any comments on this one??
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/14/2005 8:33:14 AM That is the advantage of inspired casting. If your actors need little direction than you can spend more time with your DP and line producer and play with the toys. However always always always keep one eye on your actors as they can change and go a diffrent direction. I was acting a scene once, the line was "well, was he happy to learn that I was to be a father", but in the context of the story there was a great subtlety. The point was that his wife was sleeping with his best friend. So the line changed to "well, was he happy to know that "I" was to be a father", get the diffrence. As an actor I was so concerned with the performance that I missed the emphasis on "I" that totally changed the performance let alone the line. You always have to make sure that the actors are taking the story in the DIRECTION that you the DIRECTOR wants it to go.
indycine.com View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 1:41:59 AM Casting is 90% of Directing. Good casting, good Direction, you got something.
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 8:03:23 AM I had some difficulty directing several of the folks that ended up in my feature. Some I didn't have to worry about at all, they just naturally knew where to take the scene, real hands-off. Others needed more coddling, more heavy handedness. And then there were some who just simply didn't get it. Everytime I tried to answer the questions they asked or offer suggestions, they kept doing the same thing over and over again. Some people are just naturally adept at being comfortable with themselves - on and off camera. It takes a lot of confidence, and since I was working with many non-actors who weren't entirely comfortable with the process of making a movie, it was a real (REAL) challange to get a solid perfomance out of them. Funny thing is, some of the performances in my feature lacked conviction, yet many who see it enjoy those performances and vice versa. So I suppose once it's on screen, it's out of your hands and up to the audience. The off-camera hassles and frustrations usually aren't apparent, so a bad performace in production can be tweaked and massaged in the edit, making a so-so or even a halfway decent performance come together. Still, give me someone willing to take chances and go the distance; someone with a personality - actor or non-actor. I've worked with some "ACTORS" that just bite the big one. Pulling teeth!!
indycine.com View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 2:02:40 PM Yep, and I think it's important to hire good performers, and mostly...let them work. Sometimes, what they bring to the role is far more interesting than what I'd asked them to do. In those instances, I find it best to "give up and win." I think amateur Directors are remarkably autocratic, insisting on exact line readings, and so on. For the most part, that's just ego. Most of the pros will let you work at (or play with) the character. Martin Landau told me Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock gave him no suggestions at all, to the point of Martin's feeling he had to ask if what he was doing was all right. In both cases, they seemed surprised, and said "I'd have told you if I wanted anything changed."
Naanan View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 3:57:20 PM Man I loved Landau in North by Northwest.... You have to cast for actors that are reading between the lines that you have written. The most incredible thing is when an actor reads something off the page that you hadn't intended to be there and makes the whole thing that much more remarkable. This is why a said above that your actors are to your movie, what words are to a novel. The camera is only a word proccesor. Granted it is always nice to get your punctuation correct and the ability to make sweeping corrections are nice, but if the words aren't right to begin with, no manner or effort of spell checking is going to make your novel great.
Mr. Pixel View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 6:58:27 PM here's a tidbit: I shot a series of commercials for a small pizza place back in NH. there were three commercials, focusing on a different character for each one. the second spot was about this hoity-toity pizza "designer" who taught these renegade classes on pizza toppings and such. basically an SNL skit in disguise. anyhow, the actor Greg Athans is an accomplished stage and film actor. a really great guy, one that I wish I could have done more work with. I approached him about playing this crazy character Rico Vanetti Gaslight - Pizza Designer link and he was interested in having some fun and getting some TV exposure. So we talked about his character that he would play. It took several emails and a meeting or two before we both understood one another. I kept telling him, "This guy Rico, he's not just ONE type of guy. He's a fanatic, a romantic, serious, jovial, up, down, intense, lofty, quiet, absurd, rash, etc etc..." and Greg kept wanting to play Rico as one sort of personality; when I kept seeing him as more of an eccentric, all over the place. Thankfully, the persistence paid off, cuz Greg nailed it and made the shoot a total laugh riot. We were doing improv and just hamming it up. A really exciting shoot. Once he got in front of the dozen of "pizza students" it was all him. I just had to throw out random ideas here and there to mix it up. Definitely one of my favorite production experiences as an amateur director. Lots of fun.
Scot McPhie View My Profile	Posted: 1/16/2005 8:13:05 PM To me it goes like this: 1 Have an idea 2 Write the script 3 Get an idea of how the performances will need to be as you write the script 4 Draw the storyboards - for the whole film - making sure that they bring out the ideas and feelings as well 5 Find locations to match your story boards - then go ahead and produce the film I think the thing is every element has to be great in it's own right, but are only a part of the whole and have to all work together to create that whole - and that includes the story as well - the story should just be driven by the ideas and feelings you're trying to get across - as should the shot selection (and therefor what gear you will need). If any element lets the whole down then the whole lot comes down.