Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks, that's true I don't have to follow proper procedure. However, the audience is aware of the 4th amendment and a search and arrest not holding up, if the amendment is broken, aren't they? Will an audience accept a world with no 4th amendment or a very changed one?

I was not using the split screen to show a conversation but to show the timing of the villains covering up evidence, to how long it would take for the cop to get the go ahead to search and enter.

Sorry if I was coming off as stubborn, it's just I keep being told on here to come up with my own ways of shooting the movie and that that's my job as a director. So I come up with an idea of how to shoot this scene, and then I am told it's wrong.

But if I should come up with my own ways of portraying the scene, then shouldn't I own them therefore?

[Brian Drysdale]

Is anyone outside Canada won't know the 4th amendment, plus characters in films and TV don't always follow the rules. Therefore you have to know if your character bends the rules and if so, how far will they go?

It's entirely up to you how you shoot a scene.

As Kubrick would ask "It might be real, but is it interesting?"

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but shouldn't I market the film to audiences in the US too, if that is where the story is set? I could set it in Canada, I just thought maybe an American setting would be more popular with an American audience.

But Canada has a forth amendment equivalent though too.

And I don't have to use the split screen, I just thought it would be better for the timing for this section. I can reconsider, and ask the DP for input as well, after I find one.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh okay thanks, that's true I don't have to follow proper procedure. However, the audience is aware of the 4th amendment and a search and arrest not holding up, if the amendment is broken, aren't they? Will an audience accept a world with no 4th amendment or a very changed one?

I was not using the split screen to show a conversation but to show the timing of the villains covering up evidence, to how long it would take for the cop to get the go ahead to search and enter.

Sorry if I was coming off as stubborn, it's just I keep being told on here to come up with my own ways of shooting the movie and that that's my job as a director. So I come up with an idea of how to shoot this scene, and then I am told it's wrong.

But if I should come up with my own ways of portraying the scene, then shouldn't I own them therefore?

You shouldn't be spending your time on odd cinematic things like split screen or concerning yourself with the 4th amendment. You should be crafting interesting characters and plots that explore things that engage the audience. The plot and subject is often secondary to the characters in them. People love and cherish Sherlock Homes without having to know the rules of English law.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, it's just I thought that the characters and plot are already created and the next order of business was to storyboard and do the shotlist, then a DP and crew, then casting, and then work with the cast on the characters as well. Unless that's not a good order to do things? Or at what point should I do the storyboard and shot list then?

As for audiences not caring about legal things, what happens though, when people read your script and they say this is not how the police would legally behave. Does that mean that some readers care about the law still and I should do research therefore and rewrite it, or no?

[Paul R Johnson]

I've lost it, I think. What exactly is going on side by side, that is crucial enough to split the viewer's attention?

I've heard of the 5th amendment. That's the one where the cops ask the question and the other side "take the 5th" - which without researching I presume is something about not incriminating yourself? I've never heard of the 4th, or the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Ryan - you ask us a question and we give an honest opinion.We do tell you to come up with different ways to solve your problems, but when you come up with ones we know won't work, are you asking us to pat you on the back and say - "brilliant, Ryan, that will work splendidly" or just tell you the truth? If you come up with a good idea, we'd be very pleased for you.

Is your actual script in need of all this cleverness? Surely if the words are good, then they don't need tricks. I rather like the sequential location change when people use radios or phones. The totally technically ridiculous scene in the first Die Hard, where John talks to the Police officer. Just cuts that move from the top of the building to outside. A simple conversation, and two actors talking to nobody, put together in the edit. I suspect somebody simply read in the lines from the actor not in the shot and it works rather well. They could have used a split screen, and cost or actor considerations didn't apply - it would have been confusing and unnecessary.

You need a very good script. You need to then create the pictures that go with it and then you present this to the good actors and competent crew for shooting. A mistake in any of these components will wreck it.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. The thing that is going on side by side, is the cop looking for probable cause to get in, or waiting on permission vs. on the other side, the villains trying to clean up all their evidence in time and escape out the back. I felt that if I show the timings of these two side by side, it would make it more of an entertaining unfold.

No, I am not trying to ask for a pat on the back of course. I am just wondering what am I doing wrong. Am I doing something different wrong on a case by case basis, or is their a route core problem in my way of planning on a scene perhaps that is prevalent in all my scene plannings?

[Brian Drysdale]

[QUOTE=Ryan Elder;1956844 As for audiences not caring about legal things, what happens though, when people read your script and they say this is not how the police would legally behave. Does that mean that some readers care about the law still and I should do research therefore and rewrite it, or no?[/QUOTE]

Do you actually believe that all cops follow all the legal requirements? Unfortunately, history of full of cases where they don't and some of the best fiction is about stories in which they don't. You should know the standard procedures, but you should also know enough about your world to follow those cases where they don't follow them.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well it's just I was told that the cop would be fired for breaking the rules like that, and the audience would expect that.

Now I know I was told not to compare to other movies, but if I do, and you watch Dirty Harry and Lethal Weapon, those protagonists are breaking the rules all the time though. However, I was told that those characters are more emotionally invested in the crime stories at that point, where as mine is just a cop on patrol who got a call, and he is not personally invested yet, since this is early on and an inciting incident, if that's a valid point?

[Paul R Johnson]

If you say "I was told" to justify every misunderstanding, you will never learn. Next time somebody tells you something, before accepting it as gospel, try some research, and if you find it valid opinion, take it on board. Many times, however, you'll find people have told you things that are wrong, or maybe they just were misunderstood. You misunderstand so much of what is said to you.

If the cop does everything above board, won't this be terrible dull? Your life experience seems so limited. Have you never taken chances, looked at potential risk and ignored it, or done what your gut says is correct, but the rules say is not? Have you never taken a stand, or acted on your heart? People follow rules, unless there is a reason not to.

Would a police officer intent on putting a murderer away who they were 100% convinced was guilty ignore a piece of contrary evidence that they knew defence counsel would use to get them off? Sounds like the premise for a screenplay. An honest policeman who if he does the right thing, would set a murderer free? Or should he simply turn a blind eye to the new evidence and let natural justice put the guy away for life? If you have to be scrupulously accurate, it will be due, dull, dull. Where's the drama, the conflict, the resolution?

Throw away the rule book, make new ones up, or be a bit radical - I suspect this just isn't you.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks. I'll do that.

There is also another scene where I want to have a character testify in a hearing, and I want another character to see what she is saying, and then get an idea to move onto the next plot point.

However, hearings like this are often not open to the public for anyone to just come in and watch. So if I write it so that this one is, would the audience be bothered by it?

As for the split screen, I just feel that when people tell me not to do something, I need a reason. But when reasons are said like it's unnecessary, or drawing attention to itself, or that is now how people view the world, those just seem like vague explanations, and if I shouldn't do it, I just feel I need a more more specific reason, rather than a vague one, if that makes sense?

[Brian Drysdale]

I wouldn't worry about it, one feature film had a lawyer doing the case in an English court, which would be done by a barrister (a lawyer who presents the case in court), they amalgamated these roles into a single part. The film is based on a true story.

That's a lot more noticeable to a member of the British public and people aware of the UK legal system than your outsider being at a hearing, especially since you say it can sometimes happen. As they say, don't learn your history from watching feature films.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. It's just I don't want the to have to fill the whole courtroom with extras and only want the characters that matter to the plot to be there. So as long as the audience buys that he is there, and no one else, etc. I can try to keep thinking on how to do that...

[Paul R Johnson]

Aaaagh!! You're doing it again. You're making decisions about what is best, based on what is best for a no budget production. We argue about the cinematographic elements and angles, and grip kit when your scene has been written to allow you to do it with LESS realism because you can't pay for actors. You won't make video compromises but accept scen/set/cast ones?

This is just ridiculous. If you want quality but cannot afford it, then scrap ideas for a big movie with minimal unrealistic scenes because you need to depopulate it, and write a story that only has a small cast throughout. You are trying to convince yourself you can make quality products without content!!

Your split screen idea makes sense now - it's cheap.

[Brian Drysdale]

You don't need to fill an entire court room, just pack the areas around the characters with extras, use longer lenses to narrow the angle of view if need be or mostly have walls/ceiling in the background by lowering the camera height,

Don't have a wide shot of the court room, just show the exterior of the building and cut to the scene.

Keep the scene short and to the point, not rambling.dialogue.

Again, do more shorts, this is the stuff you learn by making them