You're the editor, you have to work these things out yourself. It's so easy to compare cut timings on a NLE.

What do you think, Ryan. It's pointless us explaining in words, if you cannot see any of this for yourself?

Well in my own opinion i can see that the speed of the camera movent should match in both shots. But i think its fine to cut where it is but that is just how i see it (shrug).

I'll try one more time. You are over thinking it and trying to use your preset list of rules. What you need to do is consider how it works. I know I would never have joined those two shots like that, because I personally don't see it as a having a point? What was wrong with the first clip that needed the edit to a virtually identical, but slightly different one. It's like those youtube videos people do now where they just have a fixed presenter and camera position and do horrible jump cuts at each edit, making the edit obvious, when to me, the viewer should not notice the edits at all, and they should flow.

I think I have to retire from this conversation, because I've failed totally explain myself in a way you can understand.

If we're talking about the same cut, it just doesn't work in any way (even as a jump cut), especially given the context.

Remember what's in your mind's eye mightn't be the same as that of the audience.

[quote=Paul R Johnson;1953215]I'll try one more time. You are over thinking it and trying to use your preset list of rules. What you need to do is consider how it works. I know I would never have joined those two shots like that, because I personally don't see it as a having a point? What was wrong with the first clip that needed the edit to a virtually identical, but slightly different one. It's like those youtube videos people do now where they just have a fixed presenter and camera position and do horrible jump cuts at each edit, making the edit obvious, when to me, the viewer should not notice the edits at all, and they should flow.

Well since l thought it worked, how does a director tell that his mind's eye will be different from the audiences? How do you anticipate the audiences' minds eye?

But I didn't think I was over analyzing it because three things about the shower pointed out to me that I didn't see you so I thought maybe if anything I was under analyzing it.

Ryan can I ask how long youve been at the whole filmmaking thing? Including school. I ask because some of this ability to tell what works and what doesnt only comes with time and experience. A year or two out of school, you may just not have it yet. It took me a few years before I understood even the basics of lighting, even longer before the psychology of composition/focal length/lens choice made sense to me. Editing is even now still tricky.

I've been at it since 2011. I've made a few projects of my own so far, and I've been out of school for a few years. I've mostly been helping people on their projects to get experience, but maybe I should concentrate more on my own.

I was told by others, that I would do better if I change my approach and I need better scripts to work with as well as better actors and a better DP. I don't know if that's true, but maybe I need those things, to improve as well?

But there are times when I feel I want to convey something, but the way I do it, the audience does not understand. For example it was pointed out on here before, why did I choose a low angle for the near the opening. The reason why is, because the subject is talking about governments abusing their power, and the low angle represents power, from what he is talking about. So that is why I went for the low angle. But people on here, did not understand that I was going for that in the angle, and neither did some others who asked. So I feel I have a mind's eye and everything has a reason, but others are not seeing the emotions of the shots that I feel for some reason,

Having the best possible scripts is always the best starting point.

I knew the power reference, but the downside being you weren't making at direct emotional connection with the audience. This is something that the 1930's dictators were extremely good at, Hitler used to keep his audience in suspense by letting them wait before opening his speech

Compare with this and imagine your dialogue and the references to power and how you have a direct connection with the audience drawing them in.

A Clockwork Orange Intro (Orchestra) - YouTube

Even in this old, simple talk by a history don does the same in a low key fashion, although the shot changes in the opposite direction and not as tight. Lew Grade, deputy managing director of ATV at the time was all show business and knew when he was onto a good thing.

AJP Taylor's Lecture Style - YouTube

Slightly different approach in "Patton"

Patton (1/5) Movie CLIP - Americans Love a Winner (1970) HD - YouTube

Oh okay thanks. Was I not able to make the connection with the audience because of the script, or was it something else?

What do you think? You're the director.

Perhaps he doesnt talk about politics long enough for the shot to register...

Even within a short film there is often a 3 act type structure Act I - Setup: Exposition, Inciting Incident, Plot Point One. Act II - Confrontation: Rising Action, Midpoint, Plot Point Two. Act III - Resolution. Although, Act 2 won't be as long in a short, but it's surprisingly useful for breaking things down.

Interestingly, a good lecture or school lesson can follow the same structure.

In his biography "Skywalking," George Lucas talked about film school exercises where they would be given 16mm short ends of, say, thirty feet (barely one minute of film at 24fps) and they had to shoot a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.

Of course these days, a YouTube ad can be 15 seconds long and tell some kind of story. Point being, there's a logical structure no matter how long or short the run time.

Oh okay, we were given exercises like that as well.

Well, I talked to another filmmaker I met about it, and showed him the movie. He says the reason why some of the cuts are jarring, is that I don't hold them long enough, or I cut too soon or too slowly.

I was cutting what I felt were the best parts, the highlights, to create the best performance, or the best moments. Perhaps creating the best performance from the best sections is not first priority though, and first priority, should be cutting for emotional beats, even if it means missing small performance sections?

Oh okay, we were given exercises like that as well.

Well, I talked to another filmmaker I met about it, and showed him the movie. He says the reason why some of the cuts are jarring, is that I don't hold them long enough, or I cut too soon or too slowly.

I was cutting what I felt were the best parts, the highlights, to create the best performance, or the best moments. Perhaps creating the best performance from the best sections is not first priority though, and first priority, should be cutting for emotional beats, even if it means missing small performance sections?
A lot of this comes down to experience and/or understanding. For some this comes as second nature for others they have to learn the hard way through trial and error. The most important take away is at the planning stage you should be determining the structure, mood and purpose. Then you go about filming in a way to that supports that plan. If you try to incorporate movies you like or randomly applying rules out of context your head will become filled with a confused jumble of competing ideas that lead to an incoherent movie.
Movie making is like building a house, there is a lot of work involved, and if the blueprint is not right to begin with, all the hard work and time will be spent in vain.

There's a rhythm and a pacing to cutting. Movies breathe. Each one is a little bit different... there is no "right" or "wrong," just what's best for that story. Pick some movie you like to watch, and mute the sound. Watch it without any audio at all. Then you'll begin to notice the pace of the cuts within each scene.

Ah, maybe Chris got it. You got wrapped up in editing the words, so the cuts came at radio edit points, not visual points. Your source material had the best takes in audio pretence mode, leaving you with a problem. You got forced into the edits needing to be in a particular place to make the audio work. Possibly you have b-roll (exactly the purpose of this term) that can cover these jarring edits? I'm thinking shots of the graves, more shots of him standing in silence, the melancholy stuff?

Oh I was talking about the subject's performance though in how I edited it. What does audio have to do with that? I meant his performance both audio and visually. I have more shots of B roll I can use, I just felt it wasn't necessary to use it in those cuts, since those cuts had a purpose and I actually wanted to show his performance though. But are the cuts a problem cause they come at wrong times, even if his performance is best in those cuts?

Editing is about everything, because everything is conveying information. Even the blink of an eye is important.

You use highlights in a commercial or a trailer, but you need more in the movie, even the silences can be important and are part of a performance, just watch a Clint Eastwood film..

Oh okay well since it was only a five minute short film with a lot of narration I didn't think you would apply the same way a feature film would was silences. I thought this would be more like a commercial. But I could do more silent moments for the next project for sure that isn't a feature. Thanks, that helps!

Pacing is essential in all films, regardless of length.

oh okay, I didn't think this one needed more pauses in it's pacing, but I can keep that in mind. Perhaps I was too concerned about keeping it under 10 minutes as well

Listen to the Patton speech, there are pauses in it. If you don't have pauses and pace changes, you risk the speech becoming a rant,

Oh okay, I've saw the speech. Mine has pauses as well, but perhaps needs more in the shots that were mentioned, or does mine not have near enough?

Perhaps you should do those acting classes, so that you get a feel for these things. Even theatre centred classes would help with working with actors on films.

Oh okay, I've already taken acting classes, for that purpose. They teach me how to act myself, but not how to pull performances out of others though. I could try using the same advice the teacher used though when advising my actors, if that would help.

What do you think?

Perhaps. I could try it and see.

Directors to not advise - they guide, cajole, persuade and bribe actors. It's essential they can read individuals preferred style of direction. You cannot learn to direct on a course. You need lots of mistakes to progress - but above all, you need to have the right personality to do it well. Friendly, bombastic - it matters not if it works. The minute you lose them, you've gone.

Okay thanks. So far the directing has been different every time, for each person. I guess I can just hope for the best. But next time I am definitely doing more rehearsals for sure.

Hope for the best is not really something you can imagine any great director saying - when doing their pre-production. Proper planning is everything. You yourself have hoped for the best many times and had it go wrong on you.

Have you ever done a skills audit on yourself, Ryan?

Look at your competence in all these areas. Score those areas where you can do things with your eyes shut because it's second nature at the top, and at the bottom, those roles where you have do double check each and every decision you make, and where you simply don't know what to do next. This might show your strengths and weaknesses. In the UK where we're ultra sensitive, we now talk of strengths and areas for improvement - maybe that works better?

Oh maybe, but I am not quite sure what you mean by that. What do you mean talk strengths with areas of improvement? Talk about that with who?

He’s saying that’s the terminology they use because of the particulars of UK culture. “Talk of” = “use these words”.

Oh okay. I read that a skills audit applies to identifying skills in an organization. But I am just one person, and not an organization, or what I am I missing?

In the case of am individual, someone who knows you well and you can trust to be truthful with you. However, I suspect it may be something like this: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/personal-skill-audit-and-self-assessment-english-language-essay.php

Blimey Ryan! You're hard work sometimes. A skills audit can be applied to organisations and individuals, just a matching and evaluation of attributes. A way to assess your own sill level objectively.

Oh i didn't know how thise skills audits work. As far as skills go, how is my audio from the previous projects?

We don't know - you only tell us about disasters. The entire point of a skills audit on yourself is so you analyse your own strengths and where you find them a bit lacking. On what we know from the posts, you struggle in every single area. This cannot be right. There MUST be some things you are really good and competent at - but you have forgotten them in the quest to sort out others. It's a self written tool to assess the state of development. I can have a big list of things I'm bad at, but its harder to quantify your strengths.

If you think back to the booming noise problem, we didn't believe you when you explained. We knew there was a solution but you had trouble finding it. We knew the real problem wasn't your mic, but your technique. We knew what you found impossible was just lack of technique.

You have issues with every discipline it seems - but above all, you're really weak at experimenting and you believe every bit of information given to you giving the same weight to a comment from somebody really skilled to somebody who has been own a course worse than the one you took. "I've been told" that you repeat endlessly should really be "I've been told by the guy who directed Lawrence of Arabia that ...." then their advice has worth - but you accept ANY advice as good reliable and robust advice. The idiot that got you into the wilderness with a religious guy and didn't do it properly, for example. Why every take advice from people who are clueless?

Perhaps your skills audit will reveal positive areas you haven't considered.

Oh okay, thanks, I'll do the audit then.

The person who wanted me to do the wilderness video was not a filmmaker though, or didn't have any filmmaking experience, so I never took any advice as reliable from her.

I would say that my vision seems to look much better on paper, in script and in storyboards, compared to the later product. So something goes wrong, during production, but it's different each time. So maybe my talent is having a good pre-product, and I need to figure out how to not make it go wrong during the process after.

I agree with Paul. To be honest it’s pretty painful and exhausting listening to your indie filming making tribulations. You don’t seem well suited for it. It’s great to take chances and learn new things but you seem to take things too far, getting in over your head, no money, lack of proper equipment, inexperienced, working with others who also don’t know what they are doing. From our view point sounds like a nightmare. You need to find out what you’re good at and focus on that. In my eyes a director needs to be able to lead and communicate with the crew and actors, and problem solve. Neither of those are your strengths.

Well I will take the audit then. I still want to get into directing as it's the area I enjoy the most. I will try to get better at it, and find out what my skills are and try to apply those. I don't mean to be exhausting, just like taking in as many variables as possible, and I am thankful for all the advice and input.

Oh okay, thanks, I'll do the audit then.

I would say that my vision seems to look much better on paper, in script and in storyboards, compared to the later product. So something goes wrong, during production, but it's different each time. So maybe my talent is having a good pre-product, and I need to figure out how to not make it go wrong during the process after.

I'll refer back to the flying a plane analogy.

So you have written a plan as to how much fuel you need, where you intend to go and how long it will take you. You have filed a flight plan, checked the weather, and written down the appropriate ground and air radio frequencies. You have been told that the V1 speed is 80knots and V2 90 knots. You have also been told your take off flap settings, engine revs, climb rate etc and you have written it all down and drawn diagrams. You have been told that moving the yolk or the stick to the left or right will bank the plane to that way and that you may need to apply rudder in the same direction to prevent slip. You have also been told to pull back to climb and push forward to descend, so you are ready for takeoff. However as soon as you start rolling, things begin to go wrong because no matter how much you have written down, you have no experience to get the feel of the plane or be able to judge crosswind corrections, turbulence and a myriad other things. It's no good asking for advice on how much rudder to input or how far to move the ailerons to counteract a wing dipping. You have to experience these things multiple times to gain judgement and perception.

Your film making is exactly the same, you can write infinite notes and ask unlimited questions, but you will never learn anything unless you put things into practice and find out for yourself what works and what doesn't. Without doing that, you are doomed to failure. You can't start at the top of the mountain, you have to climb it first.

Roger

I would say that my vision seems to look much better on paper, in script and in storyboards, compared to the later product. So something goes wrong, during production, but it's different each time. So maybe my talent is having a good pre-product, and I need to figure out how to not make it go wrong during the process after.
It’s hard to believe you’re just realizing this. Executing a plan and dealing with all the issues you couldn’t anticipate is harder than the plan. I could hand you any storyboard/script from an Oscar winning movie and ask you recreate it. Do you think you could even reproduce any semblance of it’s greatness?

One thing you can count on is every movie, scene, location will be different and will pose unique challenges. Obviously the more experience you have, better prepared you’ll be at handling reoccurring issues.

Like Roger and others have said there is no way to talk you through the process.

I know people compare making a film to fighting a battle (that's a lot worse), but one saying seems to hold for both;" No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"

https://blog.seannewmanmaroni.com/no-battle-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-966df69b24b9

You can plan for things, but something always seems comes from left field that you need to react to and make the best of, especially if you're being ambitious with the film you're making.

Oh, okay, thanks.

One filmmaker I talked to said I should stop trying to do these shots I have seen in other movies and just come up with a style all my own, cause it will probably have more context, than trying to find contextual shots from other movies.

However, I'm afraid that if I went with a style all my own, then it would be like re-inventing the wheel maybe. Jean-Luc Godard was able to get people to accept a new style in the 60s, but would I be able to do that and people would accept it, or could it very well fail, and I should stick to filmmaking rules and guidelines that have been established before, to remain more safe?

In suspect you need to grab hold of this friend as he's given you for the first time sensible advice.your need for rules and framework is stifling your creativity. You are using the rules, joining them together and finding conflict. Quite normal. You are trying to paint by numbers. Remember those? You have a rigid format to follow. Each box with a number that denotes the colour you MUST put in it, and setting rigid edges between them. On e other hand you could choose the Bob Ross method. Which gives a better result? Why not try changing your collection of rules into a set of gentle guidelines?

It's so clear you are not a natural filmmaker. You don't have, or reject gut reactions. You don't have vision. You also lack technical skills so are always on the back foot. You've clearly done considerable research. Again quoting people I have to Google. I was alive in the 60s, and my film making input from that time was just exposure to movies. There's no need to create a style of your own. That might come later, but what you need to do now is just make some movies and stop trying so hard. Maybe you're going too fast. All these people who are keen amateurs who don't let you do your thing. Go smaller and shorter and downsize to a few people who will follow your direction, and you be the director and cameraman and start getting results, rather than everything falling down around you because they didn't understand your storyboards, or questioning you. Stop claiming the title, but letting other people size control. Stop endless respect and incidental stuff. Generate an idea and go and do it. Stop asking all these questions over and over again, you're not benefiting at all from what I read, just getting more and more confused. We can see your thought processes violently flipping from left to right but not moving forwards.

Surely your goal is to tell a good story. You seem to be expert in watching and remembering scene from movies. Don't take them as excellent in entirety and recreate them badly, do your own thing.

You need to perhaps pick a few critical features from good movies. Good believeable acting, camera movements that are solid and stable, decent lighting and decent sound. So far this is still a problem. Forget all the subtle stuff, practice with these 4 critical elements. Camera types, video formats, clever features and other technical things come second when you get the basic right.

It really comes few to a few basic things, get good performances from your actors, have the camera in the right place to catch the key elements of their performance and have them doing it in a location that is part of of their world.

Oh okay, thanks. And that's the thing I was told before that if I could get better actors, that good acting will trump over everything else, and that other things will be forgiven or even work better, if the acting was better, if that's true.

I feel I have visions, it's just later, they turn out to be incorrect though, but they are still there I would say.

The audience should be more aware of what the actors are doing than your cuts.

You never get everything you want, even with huge budgets.

Okay thanks, from now I can try to edit for smoothness of the cut, more than performance, if that is better.