I suspect that this refers to the content, not copy and pasting from other films, but having your own vision or voice and putting that into your films.

Nor does it apply to being able to apply the 180 degree rule and knowing how or when to break it for dramatic purpose. This isn't thinking "out of the box" it's still in the area of basic grammar.

If you try the unorthodox, you must always question if it's working, if it's not for other people, you must be prepared to make changes at the editing stage and try to understand why it's not working. Often you need to work it out from first principles, it can just come down to elements not having been set up properly in the script, so that pay off don't work.

Watch "Back to the Future" for the set ups being prepared in the early scenes and then being paid off through out the film. If you didn't have them, the film wouldn't make much sense.The secret is hiding them, so that the audience don't know they're set ups.

Oh okay, well I thought about the idea of not blocking in the storyboards and tried it out. However, if you do not do any blocking in them, then how do you know where the actors are suppose to be in the storyboard?

Are storyboards just suppose to indicate the general type of shot angle, and that's it?

"Are storyboards just suppose to indicate the general type of shot angle, and that's it? "

Thar's the purpose, so that others can visualize what the shots look like. It's just part of planning a scene, You'll see where the actor are at one point in the scene, but it won't reveal all the complex dance moves that they may be doing in that shot.

Oh okay thanks, as long as the continuity isn't so drastic such as moving over to a window or something, which may cause the other shots to have to changed. But maybe that is okay too. I can use the storyboards like that then, to just give an idea, rather than all the blocking, as long as continuity can still match later.

You still sem to be stuck at the basics, rather than progressing. Ideally you should plan for a window shot, since there may be lighting issues for the DP,

However, that's not to say that if the actors come up with an emotionally powerful moment at the window that's way better than the one you planned for, it would be a foolish director who wouldn't have a conversation with the DP about the possibility of using the window. You always need to keep an eye out for improving a scene.

There can be a difference between the scene as blocked out in your mind and the reality on the day with the actors.

When you watch the youtube continuity error clips, it's things like people vanishing, then reappearing, or props moving around. The actor movement stuff should be so obvious that everyone in the scene would say - hang on, shouldn't I be here? Actors are very good at remembering things that impact on their performance and they remember nothing about trivia on set. An extra in the background would not be noticed, but the people in the scene interacting certainly would set themselves up in perfect positions for a retake, even if the next day. They might forget the object was in their left hand, not the right - that kind of error, but they'll know if they were not standing somewhere. Story boards are not designed for that kind of info.

You are trying to process every bit of information into slots or rules. If THIS happens, then do THIS and it doesn't work.

You really need to get a grip on this or progression is impossible. I know you feel the need to plan, but it's clearly becoming a serious barrier to your productiveness, and frankly - we're not making a dent on your understanding. It's so frustrating - we want you to get it, but you say the most peculiar things, or create totally different meanings. Maybe you are trying to be too advanced for your existing capabilities, because you're not learning - that is so clear.
Doesn't thinking outside the box, mean having to do unorthodox things?
What do you mean by unorthodox? I suspect to us, it does indeed mean doing unorthodox things, as in unplanned, uncertain of success, or just simply crazy things - but we would do them with the underpinning knowledge that while maybe new and perhaps a bit radical, it could actually work. I've done unorthodox things continually for weeks on my present job, and most, not all have been successful - despite raised eyebrows from some others, but when the thing works, everyone smiles, and mentally adds it to their arsenal of problem solving for future use. It means taking a risk, carrying the can if it goes badly wrong, and convincing people it's worth a try.

You're presumably extremely uncomfortable about doing unplanned, unforeseen things - and perhaps don't have enough experience yet to turn a 50/50 into a 75/25 on the likely success front, but at some point you have to start taking chances and create your own new rules. You then need to be equally willing to scrap the rule when next time it doesn't work.

Now could also perhaps be the time to have a good think about any career plans in this industry. Being very honest Ryan, I'm forming the opinion that no matter how hard you try to process information, it's failing.

You can't find a niche where your talents work naturally. Everything is a constant struggle for comprehension. In the education world, the word 'understanding' is often a word that's kind of banned, because testing it is so hard and unreliable. You have the vocabulary, you have piles of information but I get the impression it's just unprocessed - hence your usual confusion and misinterpretation of everyones input. How many times does someone say something and your response is "so what you are saying ..." and it isn't!

There's a very small number of regular correspondents in your topics - have you noticed? Many people have given up, and skip reading them now it seems because there is never any progress.

Oh sorry, I don't mean to come up with different meanings to it. It's just when things are explained to me, there are catches in it that do not add up, and I feel like I need to ask about those catches then, that's all.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be frustrating, I just want to do better and understand it all. Thanks for being so patient and explaining things, everyone!

I can try not to plan out blocking ahead of time, it just feels risky and disorganized to me, where something can go wrong if not addressed in advance. That's all. Just seems more risky...

Planning is good when based on solid information. Planning for things that WILL, not might, change is pointless, wastes your time and ties your hands. There will always be the risk you won't change for the unknown, but perhaps better, in favour of your carefully planned and possibly less good product. Plan the fight, or fight the plan?

No one is saying not to block ahead of time and be prepared with a plan, just that you should also be open to what happens with the actors on the set or during rehearsals. This becomes more important on low budget films, where you don't have the resources or pool of talent to pin everything down, so you need to make changes on the fly.

Again, a book like "The Director's Journey" by Mark W Travis may assist. I gather it's hard to get, but you may get used copies on Amazon. It can go into more detail than forum messages, but it will allow you too work things out for yourself.

Since you have problems with actors, "Directing Actors" by Judith Weston could be worth checking out.

It’s odd that you didn’t know how to do such a fundamental thing such as proper blocking, considering being a filmmaker is your sole purpose in life and the number of years you’ve been at it. I don’t know if this comes from a lack of understanding or bad practices you’ve grown accustomed to making amateur films. It’s great you have so much drive to pursue your dreams it’s just concerning you need a 24/7 support team trying to fight a seemingly endless struggle helping you with every aspect of cinema.

Planning is useful but it shouldn’t be used as a means to avoid interactions on set, making adjustments and carrying out the normal duties of a director.

These posts are beneficial in other ways - Brian and I had never met until last week - when we got together here during the current production - I'm grateful to Ryan for making this possible!

No one is saying not to block ahead of time and be prepared with a plan, just that you should also be open to what happens with the actors on the set or during rehearsals. This becomes more important on low budget films, where you don't have the resources or pool of talent to pin everything down, so you need to make changes on the fly.

Again, a book like "The Director's Journey" by Mark W Travis may assist. I gather it's hard to get, but you may get used copies on Amazon. It can go into more detail than forum messages, but it will allow you too work things out for yourself.

Since you have problems with actors, "Directing Actors" by Judith Weston could be worth checking out.

Okay thanks, I read the Directing Actors book and have that one. I will get The Director's Journey next. Thanks. I watched some of his online advice, and Mark W. Travis is really good.

When you say that things can happen with the actors onset that are unplanned, do you mean that the actors would be more comfortable doing different things in the blocking?

No, they react to the siltation or the location or other actors and come up with something you haven't thought of, it could be any aspect of the scene, but it adds something to the scene. You will find aspects of that in "Directing Actors"; it goes into more detail and depth than is possible in a forum .

Yes, I was shown around the panto stage by Paul in our Victorian theatre. Someone reminded me that they reduced the rake on the stage because it was causing problems for the ballet dancers.

Okay thanks. I have that book and will read it again. I will also see if I can order the other one. Thanks.

And I can be open to changing blocking, I just have to make sure I don't make any mistakes if I do any deviation. I've also had it where actors come up with things I haven't thought of, and I liked it better or at least thought it was better at the time.

Any changes come down to your judgment as the director, there are no rules as to how you decide other than it fits with the character in their current situation within the story. If you can't judge these things, I would either give up trying to be a director or work on developing your shills in this area.

However, be prepared to make mistakes, since you won't get better unless you're willing to risk being wrong on occasions. That's part of the creative process, it's what you do with mistakes that's important.

ryan why dont you just make some simple shorts that take one or two days to shoot in available locations with actors and crew who will work for free (even if the actors are terrible you can work on the technical stuff and theres always someone out theres always someone out there willing to work for free) or small fees? Then youre not spending money and you can try out aaaaaallllllll these methods and ideas youre asking about exhaustively. Then there’s nothing at stake and you have nothing to lose. Hell it doesnt even have to be a complete story, could just be a scene, to see if a certain technique works.

Sure I can do that. It's just before, I was told that I should hire good actors and a good DP cause the ones willing to work for free are probably not as good, hence why I was told I need a better DP and actors.

There is one script I have that is 15 pages, all in location, I have been trying to get a location for. But I haven't been able to find a location owner that is okay for an entire 15 pages shot there, since that would take more than day. I can keep looking.

yeah for big projects or things youre trying to promote yourself with you want good people. For just farting around and experimenting and testing ideas the standard could be much lower. also 15 mins is pretty long, to me. I was thinking five minutes tops. remember these are for your own peace mind and answering your myriad questions.

Just dropped in to make a comment about using a star filter but the star filter thread has moved on so is apparently OBE. Comments have been made before about threads that morph in lieu of starting a new one.

However ...
ryan why dont you just make some simple shorts that take one or two days to shoot in available locations with actors and crew who will work for free (even if the actors are terrible you can work on the technical stuff and theres always someone out theres always someone out there willing to work for free) or small fees? Then youre not spending money and you can try out aaaaaallllllll these methods and ideas youre asking about exhaustively. Then there’s nothing at stake and you have nothing to lose. Hell it doesnt even have to be a complete story, could just be a scene, to see if a certain technique works.

With regard to Josh's idea about doing a short video, "... make some simple shots ...", this is a very good idea. A great opportunity to work on ideas and the technical aspects. Excellent idea. There has got to be some people in your area that would want a short movie made. Documentary? Heck, even some commercials for starters. Anything that can put to use some of the skills that are needed so one can feel more comfortable with varying conditions.

How long is it until this big movie shoot gets started?

Oh okay. Well I wanted to take a script I had before and just direct one or two scenes as a test. Some scenes are only 2-4 pages, and wanted to try one of those. But I wasn't able to attract to want to do it. They just said that they are only scenes, and not a whole story, and were not interested in doing just one scene only it seems.

As for documentary short, the one I shot before a few weeks ago, I am currently editing.

There's an old saying "Practice makes perfect."

Doing a variety of shoots, or projects, will provide opportunity to do, and learn, new things. Kinda like learning to drive a car, with time behind the wheel one gets better. New encounters like snow conditions.

A few years ago there was a terrible accident on a local four lane commercial district road. The cars (drivers) were following each other too close and one car stopped, the car behind "jumped" into the left lane as the last second without slowing down and the car that was behind it plowed into the rear of the stopped car. Lesson learned: give some space behind the car in front.

That was for driving but doing a video has lots of different situations and to be able to adjust to them, it really helps to have experience, the "been there, done that" kind.

Sure I can do that. When it comes to getting actors to do individual scenes though, without a whole story, how should I go about trying to get them on board with that, since before, no one wanted to do just one scene only, when I tried?

But I was also told before, to stop doing projects with the same people, willing to work for free, cause I was told that the problems I have are bad acting and cinematography, so it's not worth doing any more free no budget projects, if they are just going to result in the same problems. Do you think the people who told me that, have a point?

AGain, what I'm suggesting is these are not really supposed to be "real" movies or projects.. just trying to get you to test and see for yourself how all these things you ask about will work in a tangible way.

What does a star filter look like in the context of the project you're thinking of using it on? Answer: go out and film with one at a similar location or scene.

Blah blah blah blah blocking? Answer: storyboard the crap out of a scene or short and film it to see what happens when you try to follow those boards exactly the way you want. Did it work out or did you have problems that no amount of planning could solve?

etc. etc. for each of your many questions/threads.

Hell, you could even cast, family, friends, yourself in every role. The idea here is proof of concept...what result do I get when I do X? Most of your concerns are technical not artistic so again for these purposes, doesn't matter if the actors are bad.

Oh okay well the last short film I made, I followed the storyboards down to a T without changing my mind on set at all, and I felt things were much better, than on past projects. I didn't fall into any traps that I did when changing my mind on set before.

I've tried to get family and friends to do tests with. They are okay with helping out with a shot here and there, but they never have time for a whole scene, and always cancel or duck out so far.

Do you have that short available to view? As much as it may be painful you can learn a lot by criticism, especially when you think something is good (not to say it isn't but anytime something of mine was criticized it was rarely about the things I had ever thought were lacking).

Sure here is one I completed:

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

Here is one I am currently editing now, and here is a very rough cut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x32nSz6pCc&t=79s\

And here is another one:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

We've seen those. I mean the one you said you followed your storyboards to a T and were pleased with the result.

That was the first one I posted, Battle Damaged Souls.

You can have a one or two minute film that tells a story, some commercials are shorter than than that and they tell a story.

https://biteable.com/blog/tips/best-commercials/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/christmas/0/best-john-lewis-christmas-adverts-watch-moz-monster-elton-john/

There are also 15 second and 30 second film festivals, where you have to tell a story in that time.

Perhaps but out of all the scripts I have come across, none are that short. I am not a good writer though, and was told by others to no longer do any more of my scripts and choose better ones, written by better writers, if that's true, I should. I could keep looking for shorter ones.

Maybe documentaries are a good direction to go Ryan - the bio thing is probably the most interesting thing you've posted. The guy is likeable and his voice, to a Brit, is fine. I'm sure you will sort it, but when you cut to the other shots, NONE need sound. Even the one with the bird calling - use an well recorded spot sound effect, not the real noise because the wind become a hiss and of course abruptly changes every cut. One shot has vertical objects in it that are NOT vertical. More care in the camerawork. Horrible pans - full of speed changes and jerks. They really stand out. Pick the framing for the presenter and stick with it. Some moved. The only real question unanswered. What is a bioblitz? Never heard the term before.

It may be worth doing a film without any dialogue, lots of talking heads can make a film appear like TV, rather than cinematic.

Yeah I could try to do one that is not dialogue driven, I just mostly tend to do dialogue cause of lack of budget, to tell a story.

Maybe documentaries are a good direction to go Ryan - the bio thing is probably the most interesting thing you've posted. The guy is likeable and his voice, to a Brit, is fine. I'm sure you will sort it, but when you cut to the other shots, NONE need sound. Even the one with the bird calling - use an well recorded spot sound effect, not the real noise because the wind become a hiss and of course abruptly changes every cut. One shot has vertical objects in it that are NOT vertical. More care in the camerawork. Horrible pans - full of speed changes and jerks. They really stand out. Pick the framing for the presenter and stick with it. Some moved. The only real question unanswered. What is a bioblitz? Never heard the term before.

I find documentaries to be more of a challenge to make than fictional narrative stories. I've helped others on their documentaries, and they take a lot longer to make than fiction, but are also more complicated, cause since they are not scripted from beginning to end, you don't know what people are going to say, or where it is going to go. So I would rather just stick to fictional narratives.

As for the camerawork, that's another reason why I do no like documentaries, as there is no planned blocking with where people are moving around, and especially if it's animals in this case, so the camera work constantly has to be adjusted with no plan. Perhaps I just need to get use to the sensitivity of the telephoto lenses as well. But I would still like to stick to fiction where all the movement is planned and blocked out.

When you say pick the framing for the presenter and stick with it, what do you mean? Do you mean cut out all the animal shots?

The reason why I have the real sound of the hawk, is cause the people who hired me wanted the real sound, not a sound effect. They also wanted all that wind breezing over the shots as well, so I was just following their requests, but I see what you mean that it is not needed. I think I can get rid of the wind changing with the hawk sound with some room tome adjustments though, if they want the real sound.

As for what a bioblitz is, there is more narration to be done, and more footage to be shot and edited, and once it's finished it should explain everything. A bioblitz is a gathering of biologists to study things in the landscape, as far as I could tell.

You don't need a big budget to make non dialogue driven films, it's one of the best ways to learn and it impresses more at film festivals than something that feels like a daytime TV soap opera.

Sounds like you should be doing documentaries because it's a chance to address a major weakness that you have.

You will spend longer writing a drama script than you will spend in making a documentary.

Keep to the same steady framing of the presenter or, at the most, a closer shot used at the key moment and cut in the animals as required. They are what the people want to see, not the presenter.

Regarding the hawk, you will be using real sound of a hawk, just not when recorded live. It's done all the time of high end natural history documentaries and done properly it will sound and look like it was regarded live.You can record this yourself if you've got the right sound gear on the high end productions, they've got a sound recordist who will spend hours trying to get the highest quality audio.

You don't need a big budget to make non dialogue driven films, it's one of the best ways to learn and it impresses more at film festivals than something that feels like a daytime TV soap opera.

Sounds like you should be doing documentaries because it's a chance to address a major weakness that you have.

You will spend longer writing a drama script than you will spend in making a documentary.

Regarding the hawk, you will be using real sound of a hawk, just not when recorded live. It's done all the time of high end natural history documentaries and done properly it will sound and look like it was regarded live.You can record this yourself if you've got the right sound gear on the high end productions, they've got a sound recordist who will spend hours trying to get the highest quality audio.

Oh okay, but there are a lot of movies that are dialogue driven though, without feeling like a soap opera though, i.e. 12 Angry Men? But I can try do less dialogue driven then.

As for taking more time to write a script instead of making a documentary, the documentaries are more complicated to make, cause there is no script though. Or that is just how it is for me so far.

When you say use the sound of a real hawk but not recorded live, do you mean a hawk that is captured, as oppose to flying around to avoid wind? No one I know has a captured hawk. There are sounds of ones online but they are recorded with worse quality than mine, so I didn't use them. Or do you mean something else?

As for recording myself compared to someone else, well the people that hired me, wanted to do shoot the footage, as well as record the sound, without having to hire any more people.

Thinking out of the box for subjects to video:
Since there is a preference for PLANNED scenes and stories, what about talking to a drama teacher in high school, a prof in the university, or a local drama theater, and ask them if they can use a video of a part of their play? Actors and musicians can be their own worst critics and after they see their performance on film (okay, we know it’s digital), they can see where improvements can be made so a video can be really useful for them. The video will help the actors, the director, lighting grips, and … the videographer.

Not talking about the whole play, just a scene or two, or whatever you or someone else wants. Given the script you can storyboard it and share it with the director and maybe even the actors.

What we mean is that the wind noise and background vs hawk sound were bad. So you get a sound effect library with a properly recorded and controlled recording of a hawk and use that. That's what everyone does. I worked for a TV station in the UK famous for their wildlife programmes, and hardly anything we shot had usable sound. Some of the sounds we used were very old recordings, others were artificial and we won awards. In the early days, many of the sounds used in British TV and movies for animals were actually made by a man, who made his career being able to mimic real world animals - Percy Edwards if you want to Google. It's no more cheating than planting sounds in a 5:1 mix where they never really were.

the people who hired me wanted the real sound, not a sound effect.
How would they know? Don't tell them - just provide visuals with matching audio.

You can download the entire BBC sound effects library for free if you look hard enough. on-line sounds vary so much in quality, but they will be better than anything you have. Wind free days, long shotguns, full wind protection, hours and hours of waiting in the countryside - or a .wav file? Hmmmmmmm

As for taking more time to write a script instead of making a documentary, the documentaries are more complicated to make, cause there is no script though. Or that is just how it is for me so far.

Since you say that you can't write, why should making a documentary be more complex? In production terms they're relatively easy and a lot more get made than dramas, which are more complex in every department and usually require a greater range of skills in their production.

As I mentioned, it addresses a weakness that you have and you can only improve if take these head on.

What we mean is that the wind noise and background vs hawk sound were bad. So you get a sound effect library with a properly recorded and controlled recording of a hawk and use that. That's what everyone does. I worked for a TV station in the UK famous for their wildlife programmes, and hardly anything we shot had usable sound. Some of the sounds we used were very old recordings, others were artificial and we won awards. In the early days, many of the sounds used in British TV and movies for animals were actually made by a man, who made his career being able to mimic real world animals - Percy Edwards if you want to Google. It's no more cheating than planting sounds in a 5:1 mix where they never really were.


How would they know? Don't tell them - just provide visuals with matching audio.

You can download the entire BBC sound effects library for free if you look hard enough. on-line sounds vary so much in quality, but they will be better than anything you have. Wind free days, long shotguns, full wind protection, hours and hours of waiting in the countryside - or a .wav file? Hmmmmmmm

Oh okay thanks, I can do that. Thanks! However, I did record the wind separately for 'room tone'. Is the room tone not matching, whenever I put another sound in though? As for how they knew it wasn't the sound of that hawk, they could tell that the species of hawk was different from the sound. I am no species expert, so I just thought well since I recorded the sound with my sound equipment, I will just that, if that is the species they want.

Since you say that you can't write, why should making a documentary be more complex? In production terms they're relatively easy and a lot more get made than dramas, which are more complex in every department and usually require a greater range of skills in their production.

As I mentioned, it addresses a weakness that you have and you can only improve if take these head on.

Well, it's just a documentary goes in all kinds of directions, compared to a more focused script where you know how it's going to end. In documentaries, you don't know how they are going to end, cause you don't know what people are going to say, especially if tackling a bigger topic.

I was also told I should stick to the genre I enjoy the most, cause that means I will probably do better in that genre, if I have more of a passion for it. Is that true though?

As for taking more time to write a script instead of making a documentary, the documentaries are more complicated to make, cause there is no script though. Or that is just how it is for me so far.

This is really what life is. *Stuff* happens.
Talk to a contractor about a remodel on your house and they will give you an ESTIMATE. Why, because while one has a PLAN, a building permit, (or a Storyboard) once they get into the job there are "unforeseen" things that come up. The contractor figures out a work-around and the owner approves it (or maybe not!), and the job continues until the next unforeseen. At the end of the day you (the owner) gets what you wanted (or, more or less), and the contractor gets paid (original estimate plus the unforeseen extra work).

Same with taking your car in for repair, with you in the hospital on the operating table, etc. That's why when you volunteer to take someone to the airport you PLAN to leave early because there can be an unforeseen accident, road construction, too much traffic, flat tire, or the car wouldn't start. Even with the Plan one might still be late.

It's about being able to "wing it", "roll with the punches", and do something "on the fly". An MC (Master of Ceremonies) who asks questions to someone in the audience and passes the mic to them for the answer, never knows what will happen. One can hope it's an easy answer but sometimes it's a surprise and the MC has to wing it.

In "Dirty Dancing", even though the shooting was only something like two months long (I'm still amazed), there was a problem because the movie was about a summer fling and when it was shot it was late in the season and the leaves started to turn color. What to do??? They went and spray painted the fall foliage green! Impacted the schedule and the skinny budget. Not planned. *Stuff* happens. One has to be "on their toes" and "fast on their feet".

The real Professional makes it look easy and most likely one never notices their problems.

Well so far I have just found fictional narratives better, cause since it's scripted I know what's going to happen, and where everything is going.

I could try documentaries, and focus on that, it's just why try the more difficult challenging genre? Shouldn't I tackle the easier one?

Because it may not be easier for the audience to watch.

So the documentary project so far, was easier for the audience to watch?

It depends on how good a film maker you are, but if the audience is into natural history they'll accept quite a lot.

With dramas they tend to be more demanding and there's more to go wrong in making a drama.

Oh okay, I can understand that for drama, or fiction. I just thought it would be easier to make since it's scripted and you know what was going to happen and where everything is going.

In a documentary you're dealing with real people in the real world. In fiction, you're trying to create characters with actors, who can be miscast or of variable quality, can be emotionally fragile or have an overbearing ego, plus deal with the outside world not matching your fictional world.

The result can be that you get something that doesn't really work and you only think you know where everything is going.

Yeah that's true. I guess I am just not cut out for documentary, in the sense of where I would go with one, and what the theme would be, compared to fiction, but I can try. What is it about me that is better at documentary filmmaking though, since I find it more challenging?

There is one filmmaker I worked with not too long ago and she wanted to make a documentary on a true murder crime story that happened where we live. However, she had trouble getting people to want to talk about it, and ended up scrapping it. I told her that she should instead maybe just write it as a drama with actors, and change the names around, but still base it on the true story, just with the names changed around. She took my suggestion. However, if documentaries are easier to make in some ways, do you think I should talk her back into doing it as a documentary and getting the people to want to talk more?

Many fiction crime films are based on real life events.

Part of documentary film making is having access, if you don't a major selling point is lost. The TV market has a big demand for documentaries and you're more likely get work as a director in that sector, than directing feature films.

Sure I can do that, if the opportunity arises. It's just hard to get people to open up about serious true events it seems, but maybe there are books on how to do that as well. So it's not that if I have more of a knack for making documentaries, based on the footage you saw, it's just I am more likely to get a job there?

It's not that hard to get people to open up, just not everyone wants to, but it's surprising how many people will. There are books on all genres of film and TV production.