How does a filmmaker decide which aspect ratio to shoot in?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, thanks. Sorry I missed that. Well I can try to make my own decisions and be more comfortable with them then. Perhaps if I am forced to boom again, could I have the assistant director judge the acting through the camera?

[Brian Drysdale]

The assistant director has no responsibility for the acting, they are the producers representative on the set, They are there to ensure that things happen and keep you on schedule, so don't get confused by "director" in the job title. It's not a creative role as such (although good ones will offer ideas), they also organize background action to your instructions.

As director, it's your responsibly to ensure that you can see the performances and offer advice to the actors as required.

[Paul R Johnson]

It's easier to find a boom op than a director. You MUST be the captain of the ship, or find somebody who can be. After all the effort, why are you considering surrendering the project? All the things you ask and want to be in control of, yet you want to give it up and run a microphone (which you've already said you're pretty terrible at).

[Paul R Johnson]

I've just been watching yet another re-run of Thunderbirds are Go - the movie version of the Gerry Anderson series I grew up with, and know very well. On my big TV, it's clearly very wide with black masking top and bottom, and knowing the original TV series in 4:3 so well, the only benefit is a few vista shots where things approach the camera, or Thunderbird 2 takes off from a side view. Artistically there's no real benefit to the story, or the look, although there are some wide OTS shots where the camera does a move past the blurred person in the foreground that they didn't do in the TV series. There are also lots more low level shots, where the perspective is forced. Easy to see how the director and DoP took advantage of the new format, but it really doesn't move the story on, or create any kind of mood - it just allows the viewer to see more!

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

It's easier to find a boom op than a director. You MUST be the captain of the ship, or find somebody who can be. After all the effort, why are you considering surrendering the project? All the things you ask and want to be in control of, yet you want to give it up and run a microphone (which you've already said you're pretty terrible at).

Okay sure, how do other directors though judge performances, when they take on other duties though, such as some who act in their own movies? Or is it easier to judge the others' performances when you acting?

As for finding a boom op, I've had a lot trouble finding a good one. Most of them do not aim the mic very accurately in my experience so far, which is why I like to do it myself as someone else does the mixing preferably, since I am less experienced with the mixing, compared to boom operating, which I've done before.

What if I also co-directed this feature film with someone? That way, I concentrate on the directing duties with the technical aspects, such as how I want the movie, to look, sound, storyboards blocking, etc, where as the director directs the performances and is more experienced in that. Does that sound like a good idea?

[Brian Drysdale]

You can co-direct, although it tends to be someone with creative or acting experience working with someone who knows how to put a film together. One example is Noel Coward getting David Lean (then a film editor) on "In Which We Serve". Another is "Performance" with the writer Donald Commell co directing with the film's DP Nicolas Roeg. however, the film had problems and needed a re-edit before release because it apparently didn't make sense.

The Coen brothers co direct, but it's a different type of relationship.

Directors judge performances by watching the actors, which is why you can't boom swing and direct,you're too busy judging microphone distance etc. On feature films, a new boom swinger tends to be someone who works as sound recordist on other types of production (but want to move over to features) or have worked as a trainee in that department and moved up. It's a matter of the sound mixer insisting on their boom swinger correctly positions the microphone, within a couple of hours they should catch on (assuming they done some swinging before), although perhaps not getting right it every time (even experienced ones can dip into shot).

When acting, directors generally have the experience (from the stage and/or screen) to know when performances are working, but they'll look at the video assist recording in film or playback on a digital camera or, in the past, quietly discuss with the DP and camera operator.(or some member of their personal team).

Given the power dynamics on a set, a head of department also directing would work better, rather than a junior crew member.

There are many books on the subject of directing and working with actors, so if you're serious you should read them.

[Ryan Elder]

There was the book Directing Actors by Judith Weston, which I was thinking of getting if it's any good, if anyone knows?


Well working under a few different directors, they just kind of tell the actors what they want and the actors do it and that's it. Similar what I do. They don't seem to be doing anything differently, so I can't put my finger on what I can be doing better.
Here is a the film I directed that I posted before. How is the acting in it? Is there anything I could do better to direct the actors:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

[Josh Bass]

“I tell the actors what I want and they do it” opens up a huge can of worms in terms of what EXACTLY you tell the actors and how they were trained (or not) impacts how they interpret your instructions.

Ive read Westons book. Yes its good; aimed precisely at people who think its as simple as “I tell them I want and they do it”. There are many nuances in extracting better performances from them than you would by saying “lets do it again but do it angrier”, etc. It will blow your mind.

I really think you should try to get on a real, budgeted/funded film set as a PA or intern. That would also blow your mind. From everything Ive read here unfortunately, no, current/past experience does not. Really seeing the flow of a real set and all the departments work would be an eye opener. Even a three or four week feature shoot.

Again, everything Ive read here and in all the other threads tells me you more or less need that or something equivalent to grow and progress. I think youre trapped in a low budget/amateur filmmaking bubble and you need to see how its “really done” to grow.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. I've been on three feature film set shoots so far, aside from the short films I've been on.

Two of the features had really small skeleton crews, and one had a really large crew. I was also on a web series shoot that had a pretty large crew as well. Is there anything I am missing when it comes to these though? I wouldn't say my mind was blown exactly, so therefore, am I missing something?

[Josh Bass]

Perhaps not then. It just seems that some of the stuff being said by others in these threads is coming as news to you, like what an AD is or why it’s impractical for the director to also be the boom op, etc. etc. This is all really basic stuff so I thought perhaps you had not been exposed to a “real” production environment.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well, I know it's normally not the AD's job to do that, I was just trying to solve my own problems and get creative, and think outside the box, by perhaps having the AD watch through the screen, if am forced to be a boom op. So even though it's not conventional, I feel that I have to go outside the box to solve problems.

But I was watching the making of Braveheart on the DVD, and Mel Gibson said that he had his own person to watch and judge his performance I can't remember if it was an AD specifically, but I thought if he had someone to judge actor performances, maybe I could...

[Brian Drysdale]

Do you want to direct a feature or not?

Actors may do it in a way that may not have the right subtext, or they see the character differently or they bring all sorts of personal baggage with them. These may be solved during the casting process, but they may respond differently during the shoot than the auditions. There may be discussions or rehearsals with the actors where the crew isn't around. It's not unusual to clear the set, so that the director can work alone with the actors.

Mel Gibson will have someone who he knows and trusts, they'll be part of his own personal team (stars tend to have a number of these people with them) paid for by the production, not the 1st AD, who may have other things to do on a big production.

The simplest thing to do is select someone with a good attitude and train them to be a boom operator before you go into production.

[Paul R Johnson]

I'd really love to stand next to a director who told a famous name actor "what to do". This shows a total misunderstanding of the Director's role. They need precise mechanical direction - where to go, when, what to pick up, put down, where to look, and they need delicate prodding to make sure their character is what the director needs. Are they angry? Why? Who at? For what purpose? Will it increase or subside? Where are the limits? What do the feel? In your clip, the acting is average, but the director should have made sure the female was believable. When she starts the "who cares" bit about fine wine, real people don't talk like that. The fault is the script which speaks in a kind of strange version of conversational English, and the actress who is over the top - making sure her diction is correct, enunciating each clump of words, and doing 100% mouth movements instead of realm ones. She's also OTT in her volume, and some of her inflections go up instead of down. The kind of acting you would see in an amateur play, not a movie. She sounds like she is acting, which means she wasn't. In the next clip she holds out her hand and it isn't taken. The Director should have had her drop her hand in embarrassment, which happens in real life. Nobody holds out a hand, and then keeps it there. "proprietory ..........process ..... folders" the long gaps were awkward, why didn't the director re-shoot with out the gaps, they're dramatically awkward and unreal.

In one bit there's a continuity error - Have I made myself clear - cut. Then a reframe and not spot the actress changes her hand positions.

The three actors - the boss type, he's OK, the wine company owner is a little undirected, and I suspect much of what he does just happened because of his reading of the character, but the girl is poor in her acting ability, stunted, doesn't read the meaning of the words, speaks unlike a real person and is totally unbelievable I'm afraid. Three years at acting college might work, who knows. However, good direction would have worked on her. Softening phrases, stopping the wrong emphasis on strange words in a sentence.

However - much is made worse by the technical issues. Wobblycam is a killer for concentration, odd angles, strange camera positions, crash edits. A nice amateur film project but uncontrolled in its production. A strong effective director would have cured some, and lots of work on the look and feel.

The terrible perspective changes in the audio make it tricky to listen to, but you forget the audio problems after a while.

I've been production manager when many famous, and often awkward people are being directed - I also do quite a few where we get the new breed of celebrity to be directed, and many have never had a days training in acting in their lives. A well known face and undiscovered brain. The good directors really get them, and can get the best out of them and stop them looking an idiot - unless looking like an idiot is key to their character, when the good director can also expose their weaknesses and make them look worse and only they don't spot it. They really get the subtle signs of insecurity actors have. They make a living trying to be somebody else, but sometimes the directors do not explain to them who the character is. The girl in the movie clip for instance. Is she really investigative in nature? Is she really nosey? She doesn't;t seem too 'get' her character. Think back to the original Lois Lane in Superman. She was driven, she was awkward socially, she had few scruples, but came across as 'nice' somehow. All the reporter traits expanded. Her character wasn't realistic, but hyper charged and everyone believed it. So she wasn't real at all, but it works for the story.

I think Ryan's clip shows a bunch of keen people trying to make a movie, following all the cliches they have seen used, but not really understood. Every department put in a slightly below par performance and nobody stopped it. The camera, the sound, the acting, the locations - all slightly compromised and the person that should have spotted it and sorted it is the director. Called a halt and said this shot looks wrong - can we make it better. Can we sort out the terrible sound. Can we make the sets look brighter/cleaner/darker. Can we make the script sound like real people.

One thing could have been the glue - the director and s/he seemed to have not noticed anything.

During shooting, did the director actually call cut on any acting sequences apart from ones where they forgot lines, or were in the wrong places. Were there any examples of calming down, perking up etc?

[Brian Drysdale]

It may be worth doing an acting technique course at a local college, that may assist you in understanding how actors go about their business.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I'd really love to stand next to a director who told a famous name actor "what to do". This shows a total misunderstanding of the Director's role. They need precise mechanical direction - where to go, when, what to pick up, put down, where to look, and they need delicate prodding to make sure their character is what the director needs. Are they angry? Why? Who at? For what purpose? Will it increase or subside? Where are the limits? What do the feel? In your clip, the acting is average, but the director should have made sure the female was believable. When she starts the "who cares" bit about fine wine, real people don't talk like that. The fault is the script which speaks in a kind of strange version of conversational English, and the actress who is over the top - making sure her diction is correct, enunciating each clump of words, and doing 100% mouth movements instead of realm ones. She's also OTT in her volume, and some of her inflections go up instead of down. The kind of acting you would see in an amateur play, not a movie. She sounds like she is acting, which means she wasn't. In the next clip she holds out her hand and it isn't taken. The Director should have had her drop her hand in embarrassment, which happens in real life. Nobody holds out a hand, and then keeps it there. "proprietory ..........process ..... folders" the long gaps were awkward, why didn't the director re-shoot with out the gaps, they're dramatically awkward and unreal.

In one bit there's a continuity error - Have I made myself clear - cut. Then a reframe and not spot the actress changes her hand positions.

The three actors - the boss type, he's OK, the wine company owner is a little undirected, and I suspect much of what he does just happened because of his reading of the character, but the girl is poor in her acting ability, stunted, doesn't read the meaning of the words, speaks unlike a real person and is totally unbelievable I'm afraid. Three years at acting college might work, who knows. However, good direction would have worked on her. Softening phrases, stopping the wrong emphasis on strange words in a sentence.

However - much is made worse by the technical issues. Wobblycam is a killer for concentration, odd angles, strange camera positions, crash edits. A nice amateur film project but uncontrolled in its production. A strong effective director would have cured some, and lots of work on the look and feel.

The terrible perspective changes in the audio make it tricky to listen to, but you forget the audio problems after a while.

I've been production manager when many famous, and often awkward people are being directed - I also do quite a few where we get the new breed of celebrity to be directed, and many have never had a days training in acting in their lives. A well known face and undiscovered brain. The good directors really get them, and can get the best out of them and stop them looking an idiot - unless looking like an idiot is key to their character, when the good director can also expose their weaknesses and make them look worse and only they don't spot it. They really get the subtle signs of insecurity actors have. They make a living trying to be somebody else, but sometimes the directors do not explain to them who the character is. The girl in the movie clip for instance. Is she really investigative in nature? Is she really nosey? She doesn't;t seem too 'get' her character. Think back to the original Lois Lane in Superman. She was driven, she was awkward socially, she had few scruples, but came across as 'nice' somehow. All the reporter traits expanded. Her character wasn't realistic, but hyper charged and everyone believed it. So she wasn't real at all, but it works for the story.

I think Ryan's clip shows a bunch of keen people trying to make a movie, following all the cliches they have seen used, but not really understood. Every department put in a slightly below par performance and nobody stopped it. The camera, the sound, the acting, the locations - all slightly compromised and the person that should have spotted it and sorted it is the director. Called a halt and said this shot looks wrong - can we make it better. Can we sort out the terrible sound. Can we make the sets look brighter/cleaner/darker. Can we make the script sound like real people.

One thing could have been the glue - the director and s/he seemed to have not noticed anything.

During shooting, did the director actually call cut on any acting sequences apart from ones where they forgot lines, or were in the wrong places. Were there any examples of calming down, perking up etc?

Okay thanks. I tried explaining to the actress, some of the problems with the inflection in the voice, but she kept speaking the same way throughout and I was unable to correct that. Is there anything I can do specifically to correct that?

As for crash edits, when is an example of a crash edit, just so I know. :)

One thing is, is that one of the actors become unavailable before the shoot, so I had to drop the character, which lead to a total rewrite of the script during shooting, so the actors had to memorize all new lines that day. But I was told that it's normal to have to undergo rewrites during shooting and it happens a lot in movies. So what can I do to make it better, for the actors?

As for taking acting courses at a college, I took a few but before, but they were geared more towards theater acting, which is a different style than film acting of course. So I feel I could use more film acting input for sure.