Do I tend to overthink things in filmmaking?

[Brian Drysdale]

I would say, that the rest were OK, if a bit awkward a times, there were also flaws in various places. It feels like a very average student film, that feels more like a TV drama than cinema.

[Paul R Johnson]

Pretty much no. You're giving people titles they do not deserve. I have never, ever called myself a DoP. I am content calling myself a cameraman. I'm still learning on framing and composition, and throughout my career, I've been competent at technical and lacking in 'art'. The framing and composition are all, nearly there - but for a shot so near the top of the movie, how did you consider a shot that moves one direction, then another, then does it in a very lurch style - something perfect? If you shot the scene ten times, and that was the best - then the new pan and tilt head you bought probably came from the pound store - I presume you have Dollar stores?

The best actor you have is the older war damaged guy, but some of the others were just not believable at all.

As for the 80s 'feel' - just the picture, the strange colours, the problems of shooting in a corridor with no lighting, the lack of that modern crisp image. It looked like it was shot on Betacam, or in some scenes even 16mm film. Sort of grungy feel, that I cannot put into words, but look at the difference in image quality between your battle damaged clip and this - is it lower resolution, or something you've done tweaking the colours? I really don't know, it just looks old. The trouble is that the script again is really cheesy. Do people speak like that in Saskatoon? The words they are speaking sound false.

Oh I forgot. The title font looks like something Michael Jackson used in thriller (don't Google it - I mean the feel of the red caption, not the actual real font) Sort of old 'B' Movie titles. Does that really work?

I'm really sorry - but it was a painful watch, and not the kind of thing that works for you. The credit after the others of RYAN WRAY in bigger text is also less than modest. The kind of thing a really famous actor would demand, as in a separate, large font credit, rather than sharing screen space. I've had agents who measured credit size in millimetres and compared it to the other lead with contractually equal billing, and the endless arguments about the length of a persons name only fitting the space if it's smaller. So your credit was a BIG one.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I actually changed my mind, I'm glad you posted your movie, instead of you asking the countless random out of context questions. We have something tangible to talk about.

While you might feel bad about the overwhelming criticism, this is actually helpful feedback that you most likely are not receiving from friends, family, or prospective collaborators. Most people are not going to tell you the truth to your face out of politeness. Prospective crew and cast worth anything would want to see samples of your work. They would undoubtedly politely decline if you showed them this.

This movie is only useful as a learning experience. It provides tangible proof of your current level but couldn't be used for your reel. What it shows is that you are an amateur, with very little experience, no professional equipment, bad actors, bad script, and untalented crew.

Many of the technical details are easier to fix. For example, rent or buy a better camera or practice more with the tripod. All of this is rather straight forward matter of craftsmanship. What is far more difficult is what is your ability as a director. How would you go about improving intangibles such as judgement, leadership, creativity, vision, and decision making. Buying better equipment or hiring a better cast will not make you a better director. I thought the whole purpose of these movies was to showcase your abilities as a director.

Beyond the glaring technical flaws, the real question is your ability as a director. Like other have said the only way to get better is to film more. The concern I have is the amount of time you are spending and the pace of progress. I mean you could spend another 5-10 years making these movies and still not achieve an acceptable level for paid professional work such as the feature film you so desperately want to produce. In order to make progress you have to be able to recognize your shortcomings and find ways to improve them.

In essence you have learned how to film by gleaning bits and pieces of information and opinions from unqualified people instead of going to school, and following that up with many years of real work experience on professional productions where you would learn first hand the process and techniques until all of this would be second nature. There is no hiding this and it shows in your movies.

[Brian Drysdale]

Making a film without any dialogue would be a good starting point. You're relying far too much on dialogue and the result isn't developing your skills as a film maker.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Making a film without any dialogue would be a good starting point. You're relying far too much on dialogue and the result isn't developing your skills as a film maker.

I could imagine someone already told him his dialog is terrible and suggested he do more action instead. Unfortunately that replaces one problem with another. Now he doesn't have the budget or skill to film things like fights, car chases, etc. This goes back to him complaining that people give conflicting advice. This comes from people recognizing a serious problem but are giving different solutions.

It's like I was telling him before not to try to produce a full film if you can't do most of it well. Like that Scandinavian guy I talked about, his movies have no dialog, he concentrates only on the things he is good at, visual story telling, mood, suspense etc.

[Paul R Johnson]

Many years ago when I bought a Panasonic camera, I got offered the chance to go on a film making course for two days. All the kit was Panasonic, the trainers were Panasonic staffers and the editors were industry pros who worked (I think) at Pinewood Studios or Elstree.

In a complete reversal of what we're talking about, we were presented with the clips - which were all on tape. We were in two person teams at the editing kit. Some groups had A/B systems so they could do effects - like wipes and dissolves, while the others had just two machines so it was cuts only.

The crafty organisers gave us all exactly the same clips, BUT in different order. we had no script, or even a summary of what the edit was about. From memory we had pretty girl, young fella with a foreign look, two suspicious types - caricature spies or maybe hitmen or similar. We had shots of the girl walking down a road, the same road with the two hit-men, all of them crossing a railway crossing when the barriers were just closing or lifting. We had shots of them creeping up the stairs to an office and various shots of them meeting.

One group produced a short where the girl was unaware she was being followed, but close on her heels were two goons, she went up the stairs and there was her long lost boyfriend, they hugged and the goons came in revealed to be her boyfriends helpers.

Another group identified the arrival of the man, then the girl, the guy but the two goons getting closer and closer,
another group had everything in yet another order. It was really interesting that until the last scene there was no speaking at all. The tension was built by cutting between the things happening, getting tighter and tighter. This was in 1980 or so, and the techniques still stick in my mind. Some of us had the fella as a baddie, some had him as the goodie, the goons were bad in most versions but supportive safety in others. Exactly the same clips but the editing told so many different stories. I really wish I had kept the course tape.

[Greg Miller]

Paul, that sounds like an interesting project. I wonder if the clips were all taken from a finished film, so there was a "correct" sequence, or whether they were shot intentionally for this training course.

I also think it would be good for Ryan to shoot a project without dialog. I guess he could also use music and SFX, but that would add another layer of complexity. I'd think the first thing would be to work on telling a story with only visuals. Just imagine he's using a Bolex H16 and go from there. Preferably a script with a small cast and no impossible visual effects.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Well I thought that dialogue driven stories may be better because dialog is a way of telling the story that is more low key, but that is just what I thought. The next short film script I am trying to get off the ground, has dialogue in it. But since I have recorded audio before, I thought I could handle it. As for if the dialogue is good, I didn't write it, it's someone else's script. I could change the dialog though perhaps, or perhaps that writer is better than me and I should just leave it as is...

Well as far as some of the advice seeming contradictory, I guess one thing I do not understand is, how it was said that getting better actors will not help me as a director. Because I was told not just on here, but other places as well, that the acting is my biggest problem I need to improve. So wouldn't bringing in better actors from other places, improve therefore? I just don't see how this would not improve, if that was the problem. Why wouldn't it, if that's my biggest problem?

Another thing is, I am told the camera sucks, but I was told before, don't worry about the camera, as that is not as important as all these other things. But now I am told the camera quality is distracting. I did use a different camera than the other ones. The other ones, the camera operator had a Sony A7s II, and this one we just used a Canon 7D.

But is the Canon 7D really that bad? I was thinking of using it for the next project, but should I try to get my hands on a different one? I thought that the camera was not that important though, compared to other things.

As for the font, I liked the font in the sense that it looks a little different than usual but still bold looking, but I can choose different fonts of course.

As for the strange colors you pointed out, can you tell me what is strange about the colors specifically? I mean I didn't wanted a cold look to it, but is it too cold looking perhaps?

Thank you very much for all the information and feedback. However, I have another project I was going to use the Canon 7D for since the camera operator with the Sony A7s II is not available now, that is if I cannot find another one to do it. Should I not use that camera though? But this is also why I want to hire a proper DP and proper actors. What I do not understand on here, is that the advice seems to be, don't hire good actors and a DP, because that will not improve. But why wouldn't it, if that's the flaws that are pointed out? I want to pratice my directing in the mean time, but I would like someone else to be the camera operator so I direct. Is that so bad?

Also I was going to ask, was this an improvement over my other shorts, or no?

[Brian Drysdale]

It doesn't matter so much about the camera, it's the person using that camera that's important. That's the likely cause of your visual inconsistency.

No one here said getting better actors wouldn't help you, if anything it's been the reverse. Good casting will help you produce better films.

What we've been saying is that you don't currently have the funds to hire a DP and actors for a feature film. However, you might have enough to do so for a short.

This short moved faster, but the performances are so poor, that they distract from the story. There's no emotional involvement, in which your battle film works better;

Cinema is a visual medium, currently your films look like daytime TV drama. There are lots of highly visual short films made on low budgets. You're being lazy by relying totally on dialogue.

This isn't a short, but it could be, also great acting by the fly. Call it "Waiting" and leave the audience to workout what happens next. After all Godot never arrives, here someone unknown arrives.

Once Upon a Time in the West The opening sequence 1 - YouTube

Find the right location, with a suitable story and you can do something interesting.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. It's weird how you pointed out the opening of Once Upon A Time in the West because I wanted the opening of the feature I wanted to do to be just like that, but people said that that movie is too slow and I would loose the audience if I made something that slow, if those people had a point?

But I was also wonderng, can you tell me what was wrong with the color exactly, so I know what to keep in mind for my taste in color grading?

Actually as for my short film looking like a TV show, I think one of the problems is that I relied too much on close up shots. This is because the actors were not available at the same times, so I would shoot a close up of one, at one time, then when the other arrived, I would shoot a close up of them. But perhaps I should not do this, because relying too much on close ups are a part of what makes it look more like TV? So when you say do one that is no dialogue and all visual, the next short film I was planning on doing does have a fair amount of dialogue in it. But is that bad?

As for funds, how much would it cost to hire good actors and a DP for a short? Would say 10K USD not be enough, I am guessing?

[Brian Drysdale]

You can't afford to be that limited by your actors availability, your film making skills won't progress,

The grading in your film varies, the skill is in deciding on a look and keeping to it, That's what gets DPs hired, being able to maintain the look throughout a film.

The costs can vary, but usually actors will work for the union minimums on shorts. The DP may strike a deal on a short, you need to discuss it. Depending on the schedule and cast size, you should get away with that figure,

How slow you go depends on the content and if the audience is going to invest in your characters. Feature films still have slow scenes, it's just you need the visual content, that allows you to hold their attention. Om your locations to date, it wouldn't hold, you need more intriguing locations. That scene is about waiting, so you expect it to be slow.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. If I can't afford to be limited by the actos ability, are you saying I should find a way to make the acting better, even if the actors ability are limited?

Also when it comes to grading, do you think perhaps it's a bad idea, to grade each scene differently? Like should a colorist color each scene differently, or should the just copy and paste the same grade over an entire movie for consitency, and not work on each scene differently at all?

Also I think one of the problems with the inconsistency was not just the color but maybe the lighting as well. I used halogens for the house scene, and kinos for the office scene. Halogen lighting is more harsh, where as kinos are more soft. But should I just use halogens for an entire movie, if that means the lighting type will be more consistent?

[Brian Drysdale]

You're looking for rules again. You have to decide the look for the film and consistent, some scenes may be a bit more in shadow that others. There are books on doing this. There was no reason for your film to vary so much between scenes/

I said availability, but you need to also cast the best people you can find for each part.

This seems to be going over old ground again.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay sure. But if an actor is all of a sudden not available till later, but the other actor is not, should I cancel for another day, when they can both make it simultaneously then, and that will be better, rather than just wanting to shoot anyway?

As for the look, this is also why I want a better DP, because they will not know how to get a more consistent look that I want of course.

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan - are you in charge, or are they? I've worked with plent y of amateurs and when they want to be in something, they're often more punctual and reliable than the pros doing it for money, who are always on the clock. You tell them they have got the part and you demand what you need and get them to confirm. So you send them the details, you tell them you have arranged everything and if they let you down for anything other than a family bereavement you sack them and let everyone know they let everyone down badly.

Let me pose a question. Let us say I was an experienced DoP who knew their stuff. A very keen amateur director/producer was paying me a token fee, and I agreed to do it. I'd do all my own planning, and get ready for the shoot. Then the Director/Producer starts to suggest things. Daft things. Then he interferes and repeatedly asks everyones opinions on every tiny little detail. He seems to think he is the DoP. He wants me to follow his plan, but the plan is faulty. He won't listen, and repeatedly changes his mind. I have a decision to make. Try to do his crazy plans or walk. Me, I'd walk because doing things badly reflects on me.

Honestly - you rewrite everything because the actors are messing you about? You really must be short of talent in your area.

re: the colour. It looks grubby, not clean, and changes from shot to shot. Also - the person the wounded soul guy is talking to looks so ill? Pale, wan, tired? Was this intentional? He looks like he's been up for three nights solid and has bags under his eyes and in desperate need of a makeup person.

I don't think the comments were intended to say the camera is bad, but the camerawork is bad. Your camera is capable of decent images, but what we are seeing is far from the usual look of that camera (or any other, really) What did the actual clips look like before they were grunged up? It looks so much to me like an available light shoot. It's not about tungsten vs something else, but the look of the lighting. It looks like there either is NO movie lighting, or its been applied badly. You ask about grading. The grading needs to have consistent results, so if that means the same result but by different methods each scene that's fine. If we look at the movie we have, the problem seems to be that there is no overall 'feel' just lots of different tweaking. I CANNOT ever be a colourist or do proper grading because it requires subtlety and not the hamfisted approach I am capable of, and of course it needs calibrated monitors so that the subtle stuff can be seen and tweaked.

If I can't afford to be limited by the actors ability, are you saying I should find a way to make the acting better, even if the actors ability are limited?

That is NOT what he's saying. You don't have the ability to make their acting better because they simply are not actors. However, as Director, you can try your hardest to get the best out of them, but my understanding is you do not have the skills to do that. You read people in person and on here extremely badly. You misinterpret so much, yet the rest of use are now so good at reading you, we often answer the question you meant to ask, but didn't - have you noticed this. Every time you say "are you saying" we really aren't. You have put yourself in the position of needing to really understand people and what they do and what they need, even if they say the opposite - and you struggle so much. I had a friend similar to you, and he'd say "Let's do it one more time" and people would mutter "yep - right!" meaning NO NO NO, but he'd take their response as an affirmative and never understood why what followed was always terrible.

If you MUST use your actors club, because that's what it is, they're just a bunch of keen amateurs, and some I suspect not even that keen if they let you down - then you should write the parts for them. Some should have the minimum given to them. If your casting is deciding which of the six get the six parts, not deciding which 6 out of 20 get the role - then some casting choices seem a bit odd. The secretary person near the beginning seemed quite good - why doesn't she get a better role? The nasty scene never the end seemed to be a bit strangely put together. At the very end, when the girl was stabbed - the thing she was stabbed with was not shown properly to the audience, so it didn't have the same visual impact, the actual stabbing shot was OK, but what was it done with? I have no idea without going back. The other thing was the action on the bed. The angles didn't match. I mean the male to female angles. The scene being very Sharon Stoneish was so clearly simulated because physically they were in the wrong positions, unlike Sharone Stone's version. Clearly difficult to direct, but the kind of shot where everyone could say no - that doesn't look real.

Are we right that the character I thought needed some makeup was you? If so, that could also explain why some of those scenes didn;t work - you were too busy acting to see what the camera people were shooting?