Oh okay thanks, I know you aren't. Thanks.

Well in order to get into a festival first, I need to make something with good actors, first. So what can I do to attract good actors without any festival winners, since I need them first, in order to have a chance of winning? I know some actors I worked with before, but I was told not to work with them. A couple of them may be good, but since I have only worked with them in comedy, not sure how they would do in serious roles. But they may be good. But of course, I need more than just two, so is there a place to look for actors that are interested, where I wouldn't need a festival winner?

I just laid out one possible path (win film festival route). One could argue that method is getting supplanted by social media. Regardless of the method your success will always be contingent on how good you're at what you do. Read that link with the 5 characteristics needed to be a film maker. You're still caught up with the details like how do I get good actors, dp, etc. When you're talented and have good projects good people will gravitate to you.

Okay thanks, I read those 5 characteristics. Good to know! Thanks.

I also watched the video on the making of The Dallas Buyers Club. So in the video they said that the whole movie was shot with the lights on the locations, and no artificial lights were used. Is that do-able though? I keep being told that I need a better DP but is shooting with the lights of the location and no other lights, even do-able? I feel like that movie got away with it, because Matthew McConaughey is in it, and people are willing to watch a movie he is in, no matter how the cinematography looks. But can just any filmmaker shoot with the lights in the location, and nothing more and still have it look professional to others?

When it comes to how I am with cast and crew, I was told before that I am too flexible with some of their suggestions and use their decisions too much. Should it be more of a collaborative process, or do I need to put my foot down more maybe?

A good DP can so amazing things with available light, however, you can't be totally locked into a storyboard. You need to follow what's available in lighting terms at the location on the day of filming.

If you find the right cast people will watch the film quite happily, at some point Matthew McConaughey was an unknown. The skill is spotting an actor before they become big.

.

Okay thanks. I can keep looking. There was one film I helped work on before, where the cinematography I thought was really good. Some of the actors were good, others, so so, I thought. But maybe the DP would be interested... even though I would have to arrange for accommodations for him to travel here. If not I can keep looking.

I know about not being locked into a storyboard, it's just in the past, if I abandon the storyboard on the fly, I have regretted it, cause then there were problems with the shot after. But I can try to get better at that.

In the past I also tried to pump out a page of script per half hour of shooting. But is that not enough time maybe, even if I am pressed for time? I was told by the cast and crew before that they were impressed by that and they like how I work fast, and get in and out of locations on faster amount of time, than on other productions. But is half an hour per page, too short maybe?

Okay thanks, I read those 5 characteristics. Good to know! Thanks.

I also watched the video on the making of The Dallas Buyers Club. So in the video they said that the whole movie was shot with the lights on the locations, and no artificial lights were used. Is that do-able though? I keep being told that I need a better DP but is shooting with the lights of the location and no other lights, even do-able? I feel like that movie got away with it, because Matthew McConaughey is in it, and people are willing to watch a movie he is in, no matter how the cinematography looks. But can just any filmmaker shoot with the lights in the location, and nothing more and still have it look professional to others?

When it comes to how I am with cast and crew, I was told before that I am too flexible with some of their suggestions and use their decisions too much. Should it be more of a collaborative process, or do I need to put my foot down more maybe?
As far as lighting you can't jump to conclusions just from watching one video. In this example you would need to watch Dallas Buyers Club and see if you like that look and whether it fits with your project. I for one would want lights. If you could plan out a location that didn't need them it would obviously save you money. This goes back to what we were saying about fast lenses. Also remember they are shooting with ARRI. So you can't just copy paste ideas without testing them out with your equipment, location, and subject.

Oh okay. Well for mine, I wanted more of a film noir lighting look ideally, if I can find a DP that is more familiar with that style, but I am willing to be flexible as long as it looks good in the end.

Time lag. As in Brian posted at 11.30 last night and I’ve just woken up and it’s 7.00 am here. We’re talking across time zones.

Ryan -it’s your money. If you can afford to lose it and not feel bad. Then carry on and spend it.

What are you like communicating face to face? We struggle via text but how would you fare on YouTube explaining your project to potential investors. Maybe you come across much better with your friends? Perhaps that’s why we struggle?

I got confused about your script to shooting ratio? I’ve never thought about pages vs time because one wordy scene on the page could be a doddle to shoot vs one descriptive page that takes forever?

Regarding half an hour per page. this is pretty much a soap opera shooting rate, it's not a feature film shooting rate (I don't now how much time you're allowing for lighting etc). Given how inexperienced your actors are, you probably won't get consistently good performances and you're limited to talking heads.

Rodger Corman used to shoot features very quickly, one film ( The Little Shop of Horrors) was reputedly shot in two days and one night, using three cameras reusing sets in a studio. However, these days it's more TV than cinema.

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960) Official Trailer - YouTube

I think I am pretty good communicating face to face, and definitely don't think I am difficult in any way before.

It's just shoot time is real tight with the schedules of location availability, so I have been trying to knock out a page per half hour. This isn't the same for every page of course, and plus the set up time, but if I take the time of a days' shoot and divide how many pages were covered, so far it's been a page per 30 minutes that it divides out too.

Perhaps if I have more rehearsal time with the actors before hand an set more rehearsal dates, then we can go and and do it just as fast but better, when the real shoot begins?

However, when I say 30 minutes per half hour, that's only a scene with two actors, that I have been timing off of. For this next project, a lot of scenes have more than two actors, so it would probably take longer I am guessing, depending on how many I decide to give close up shots to individually, or if I have time for single close ups for each.

I don't know how good you are at communicating face to face, although you did indicate this being one of the reasons for your storyboards.

Going too quickly may explain why you've got continuity errors in the filing cabinet scene. you didn't notice the cane being up instead of down and the lighting being different.

More rehearsal is always worth having.

I don’t believe a lot of what he says but not our time or money so carry on.

Yes, he keeps going in circles.

The mark of a good director is turning scripts into completed scenes - which involves delegation of some rehearsing to the actors themselves, unsupervised, or the actors with somebody to read in missing people, or for the director to lead through step by step. The best directors size up the actors very quickly and easily determine the best and most productive sequence. One I worked with always did the thing backwards. He'd look at a busy scene where at some point lots of people would be involved and he'd do that section of the scene first, and once done, he'd let those actors go, so concentrating time gradually on fewer people. I find this odd, because you'd often be going back in time, but the actors benefited.

Oh okay, that's an interesting method.

I don't know how good you are at communicating face to face, although you did indicate this being one of the reasons for your storyboards.

Going too quickly may explain why you've got continuity errors in the filing cabinet scene. you didn't notice the cane being up instead of down and the lighting being different.

More rehearsal is always worth having.

Well the cane continuity was poor editing on my part, I don't think it had anything to do with shooting, I just should have cut to show him lower it. However, doing so means that the reaction would have taken longer, but maybe continuity is more important than reaction time in editing?

With the storyboards, are you saying that I don't need them, if I communicate better? Cause for my first projects, I didn't use storyboards much, but then I was told I should use them to better communicate my shots better, so I used them there on.

For example, one time I wanted a close up shot, but I had some trouble having the DP understand the degree of the angle I wanted. So the storyboard helped more with the degree of the angle from then on. But even on other occasions, the DP looked at the storyboard and set the shot up faster, than me explaining it to them in words after looking. So aren't storyboards good therefore?

As for the lighting being different, I let the DP change the lights, but should I not let them next time, and say once the lights are planted, do not move them in between shots?

If you were a good experienced DP, would you let this Ryan guy dictate what you should or should not use? If the DP KNOWS the lights need resetting, you would be stupid to interfere, and that is the problem. You simply don't trust people to do their job. You cannot resist tinkering?

I don't think Brian meant don't use storyboards if you communicate better, he just suggested that you use storyboards rather than explain what you're doing. This suggests your comms skills are a bit iffy? we get confused quite often, have you noticed? Surely by now you'd be able to predict how well we understand - and in reverse, you constantly so "so you mean ......" when we don't! You seem to miss the point all the time.

If you didn't have the option of using another take it was poor continuity,a script/continuity person would have been across that instantly. It would've saved you that problem in the cutting.

The DP should be aware of their lighting continuity, it's not usual to adjust lights for a CU, but it needs to fit in with the surrounding shots. In this case the shot needed more fill.

You need to be extremely good at drawing storyboards in order to work out accurately the camera angle on a character by using them. No one is stopping you using storyboards, it forces you to at least think about what you're doing. .

I think his dp is a guy holding a clamp light that’s sold at a home improvement store.

If you were a good experienced DP, would you let this Ryan guy dictate what you should or should not use? If the DP KNOWS the lights need resetting, you would be stupid to interfere, and that is the problem. You simply don't trust people to do their job. You cannot resist tinkering?

I don't think Brian meant don't use storyboards if you communicate better, he just suggested that you use storyboards rather than explain what you're doing. This suggests your comms skills are a bit iffy? we get confused quite often, have you noticed? Surely by now you'd be able to predict how well we understand - and in reverse, you constantly so "so you mean ......" when we don't! You seem to miss the point all the time.

But when I trusted the DP do what he wanted with the lighting, the lighting ended up being mis-matched though. So by not interfering, the lighting turned out poor.

If you didn't have the option of using another take it was poor continuity, script/continuity person would have been across that instantly.

The DP should be aware of their lighting continuity, it's not usual to adjust lights for a CU, but it needs to fit in with the surrounding shots. .

You need to be extremely good at drawing storyboards in order to work out accurately the camera angle on a character by using them.

I have other takes to use, but my instincts told to choose the best take based on acting. Even though the acting was bad, it was the least bad in that take. So shouldn't I choose based on performance, first and foremost? Plus I didn't think the cane was that big of a continuity error, cause you can clearly see him move the cane down before it cuts to the next shot. So since you can see him move the cane down in the first shot, how is it being down in the second shot, a problem then?

But when it comes to storyboards, all I know is, is that the projects I did use them, went a lot faster, compared to ones, where we did not. Plus the storyboard not only seemed to help the DP, but it was also good for my own reference, then I do not have what all the shots look like all in my memory, and I have visual reminders as to what they look like, compared to relying on memory all the time.

Then the DP was no good. If he had been competent, he'd have sorted it. That's why you pay them large day rates or end to end contract fees. Or not, depending on your budget.

This bit is just madness!
Even though the acting was bad, it was the least bad in that take
That is NOT ever going to work, is it?

Oh okay, are you saying I should choose takes based on continuity first and performance second then?

I agree the dp didn’t know what he was doing. As the director it was your responsibility to speak up while you were shooting. But I don’t think you even noticed until we pointed it out.

Well as far as speaking out goes, how do I, who is not a DP, suppose to know when they are moving the lights in a good way, or a very bad way? Say next time, I speak up but the DP is moving them in a good way, and doing his job right.

Since I am not a DP, how would I know?

You're getting two separate things mixed up in ways that don't work?

When the director says cut - s/he will know if that take was a good one. At that point, the HoDs signify their perspectives - the DP is Happy, audio is happy, but continuity says "hang on, can we check......."
Then the director decides if it needs reshooting and makes sure the people who messed up, get it right. If at the end of this take continuity are happy but sound aren't, then while it's annoying - the sound people were 100% right to printout the error. Sometimes the director decides (maybe with consultation) if it can be fixed in post? Sound might say - we can replace the aircraft noise with the clear sound from the earlier take, and the Director accepts their professional recommendation. This is how team work saves the day. The Director is like the ship Captain - the focal point on which everything sits. You need to be this person.

Oh okay, are you saying I should choose takes based on continuity first and performance second then?

You need both because you need to cut the film together, especially if the object in question is in foreground of the shot, The performance isn't there if part of the action is different, it's your job as the director to sustain the performances of both actors.Often you can get away with stuff in the background, but not in the foreground.

Oh okay. Well sometimes when I replay the footage back, I don't notice a lot of things until later on a bigger screen. Perhaps I should arrange to play it back through a large laptop screen when shooting, so I can see more of the little things?

The aircraft thing happened before, but when an aircraft passed by, I would just call cut and wait for it to pass, and then restart the take, if that was best, rather than record a take with an aircraft on it. Replacing a take with sound from another take, never works in the past, cause the actors will say the lines a little differently, and usually you can tell the sync is a bit off.

Not if somebody competent does it. Hell - I've used snippets of audio from lots of takes to fix errors. Clearly if it goes over somebodies line - that's a cut - but in the background, which is what I meant, it's not a problem - but the sound people need the guts to call a stop.

What's the point of only looking at it when your at home editing when you can't fix it?

This is obvious stuff, look at her face. Not only is it too dark it's light from opposite direction and doesn't even remotely look like the first shot.

In these two shots (without going back through the movie) were they cut together? The lighting is different but they've completely changed positions too - the lighting is just odd. her left cheek in shadow, but her hair and the guys face are bright? Why on earth was it lit like this?

Cross lighting...her hair light is his key from another angle and it wasn't changed for the reverse

I am not sure, that shoot was a few years ago now. One thing I noticed is that when I shoot on the camera, the image is very flat and faded looking on the monitor. That is what it looked like in it's flat S-log 3 format.

So I didn't notice how apparent the difference in shadow was, until after the color grading later. The contrast, was not near as high before color grading. Next time I can put a LUT over the footage so the lighting contrast will be more obvious during shooting, if that's best.

In these two shots (without going back through the movie) were they cut together? The lighting is different but they've completely changed positions too - the lighting is just odd. her left cheek in shadow, but her hair and the guys face are bright? Why on earth was it lit like this?
I know it's hard to believe, I took frame captures from the same scene a few seconds apart.

Well I think it's because of the S-log 3 formage being so flat, that you can hardly even see the shadow patterns as a result, until grading later.

You may have gotten away with the lighting if you'd put in a turn to face the male character, because it would've fitted in with light not coming from the direction of the filing cabinet.

Well next time I will just get a much more experienced DP, with more varying styles to choose from, if I can find that good of a DP. But I won't go ahead with the project until I do.

Well I think it's because of the S-log 3 formage being so flat, that you can hardly even see the shadow patterns as a result, until grading later.
If you're shooting in LOG you should be using a monitor with a LUT to properly review the shot. Even without that you should know better to light her from opposite sides and expecting it to look the same.

Yes, I told myself next time I am going to figure out how to get LUT onto it. And of course I will watch out a lot more for the lighting. And I will not settle for less for a DP and be sure to get one that has really goodlooking movies under their belt before going ahead with the next project, if that's best.

As long as you understand going forward that's what's most important.

Yeah, I think I do... Plus good actors as well. It seems that I have been okay with audio, because no one has ever said anything about my audio so far, accept for a mistake once in a while that needs fixing.

As for a DP, there are some who may be interested, but their lighting is mostly documentary style lighting, in their reels and not sure if that is right for this type of project, especially since I was told my backgrounds are lit too well, which is what documentaries tend to do.

Documentaries have differing lighting styles, some have pretty dark backgrounds..

Yeah some do, true. Maybe the ones that concentrate on crime more, seem to.

Well I thought maybe film noir style lighting was the way to go, if I can find a DP that is more familiar in that. In the past for a couple of projects, they said they did not think that style was good because of shadows from the actors, but in old film noir movies, you often see shadows of the actors. So is that bad?

Why are you asking? You must know the look you're going for.

The whole point of this tangent was explaining why the scene was jarring and how the inconsistent lighting contributed to it.

Now were off to film noir lighting. I can see Ryan at the rental house, I'd like to rent some film noir lights. While you're at it I need a film noir dp.

I suspect it might be the reason why all the equipment is already booked at the rental house.

Well of course I know there are no film noir lights... I was just saying that is probably the type of lighting that would best suit this next project, but it's so far, hard to find a DP that is familiar with that style.

It's unlikely you'll find a DP in your area who commonly shoots with hard light, since the fashion is currently for soft lighting. You want one who likes film noir and wants to have a go using more fresnel spots instead of using soft lights all the time. So, don't expect to see your film in their show reel.

However, you may find that it takes longer to light and you may need to start from black, so all the windows may need to be blacked out with drapes or similar.

Blade Runner (1982) Official Trailer - Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford Movie - YouTube

Sin City (2005) Official Trailer #1 - Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood Crime Thriller - YouTube

Oh okay, I just thought that film noir would look good since it's a crime thriller and all, and have always liked the look of it, and felt that hard light would add to the mood.

Sadly I suspect it would look terrible. Mean and moody lighting takes planning and decent equipment and very careful focussing. You'll be moving into risky territory again. No idea why you suddenly get an idea and change everything. Personally - when I had to teach film noire, I hated it, and hated all the examples I had to inflict on the students. At best it's hard work to watch, and the student attempts were dire - poor focus, no detail in the shadows, and just unpleasant.

Oh okay, well I was just going by what would be fitting by mood, but is there a better lighting style that would work better for this type or production, other than film noir then?

The big problem is that nobody has really produced a definition of what is and what isn't film noir. It could suit you pretty well. Weird and non-standard camera angles - wide or telephoto shots to make perspective look expanded or compressed - lots of shadows and non-conformity with the usual rules (this will mess you up Ryan - no rules?)

The problem is that many poor films get classified as film noir just because they have production mistakes.

Sounds like a recipe for a real mess!