Need your feedback on this trailer. It's one minute long. Thanks for looking.

<<<I liked the "Director's Cut" better>>>

But most of the time the director is so in love with each and every frame that he/she had to sweat blood to shoot that the movie suffers.

"I remember freezing my pistachios to get that shot and I'm damned if I'm going to cut it."

Koz

This is a sales tool and job one is hook the audience, then tell them what the story is about...the concept. So for me the trailer didn't begin until the shots of the woman picking up the prostitute. Is that the story? then the twist they're dating the same man? That's a stock romantic comedy device, but I didn't see any laughs here, so I assume it's a drama. I'd pick one character and focus on that person's situational problem.

Vic,

Like you, I tend to be a do-it-myself-er. It's a tough gig.

You've gotten enough comments on the trailer, so I'll pass. But, for your next movie, because I believe you have it in you, I have two thoughts:

1. Take an acting class. Not a directing class, but an acting class. See what it feels like to be asked to do something as an actor, and learn by seeing how you are taught. You'll also learn how to recognize good acting, which can be tough and at times easily confused with people who do "a lot."

2. Whatever happens with this movie, you have probably made all the mistakes you ever need to make. My first two projects were total fiascos, basically uneditable (although, at times, I'm tempted to try again). The sound was non-existant in one. The timing was terrible. Ugh. But my third, my fourth... I haven't missed getting projects into big festivals since. And it's all because my first two sucked. I got all the really big mistakes out of the way.

Mike

Making trailers is totally an art. Check these for The Shining.

This is the original from 1980

[www.movie-list.com]

And here's a clever redux which tells a completely different story - I think it's 2005.

<<<My first two projects were total fiascos>>>

I went to the Scriptwriting Expo at the Convention Center last year. One of the lecturers wanted to illustrate a point by asking, "How many people have written more than one script." In a room with 500,000 people in it, two hands went up.


*That's* what I'm missing. That Trailer Voice!

"In a world of shattered relationships and quiet desperation, one woman dared........"

Koz

<<<And here's a clever redux>>>

So you're sayin' music and editing don't make much difference......

Koz

>>I went to the Scriptwriting Expo at the Convention Center last year. One of the lecturers wanted to illustrate a point by asking, "How many people have written more than one script." In a room with 500,000 people in it, two hands went up.<<

Yikes! Sounds like the speaker knew what was going to happen when he asked that question.

Along those lines, first project: 1 draft of script. 2nd project: 4 drafts of script. 3rd project: 30 drafts of script. That's when it finally came together.

MikeDerk, thanks for the encouraging words. I would consider taking an acting class, but I'm shy. LOL

I'm not bad at judging acting though. It's just that I don't have any money to offer and then my new movie is felliniesque -- I need actors who can improvise. That means I can't entice good actors with a script because the script is going to be in constant rewrites and sometimes non-existent. As a felliniesque filmmaker, I forget about the script. Picture me directing solo with no script, with actors who have no clue -- you get the picture :-) Well, sometimes there's no picture -- just a shot of a skyline. LOL

But seriously, I have a few scripts that I've written myself, and for the first time in years I'm actually going to start using my own scripts, and now I have the confidence to tell actors that I'm sticking to the script so don't change lines and "improve" your roles :-)

I read in a book by Ingmar Bergman that it took him four films to figure out how to make a movie.

Koz, can I use that line verbatim?

Jude, I hadn't seen the new trailer. I don't think it's accurate. I saw the film in a theater at the time. Not that the trailer is bad, or that I could edit a better one, but I think the movie was a lot better than what the trailer portrays. And I wouldn't go to see the movie based on this trailer, so it didn't work as a teazer for me either. The original trailer, with the door and the blood -- well, I'd seen that on TV and I wouldn't have gone to see the movie based on it, and I didn't. What made me go see the movie is that I saw Mike Nicholson sticking his head through the door with the axe in his hand and saying, "here comes, Johnny!" That's when I realized it wasn't a standard horror film. The movie was about a frustrated writer / director [Kubrick self-portrayal] who was forced to make a horror film to survive -- LOL -- just kidding.

A bit of advice, MikeDerk. If you have the funds to keep making new movies, forget about the first two movies you made, but if you run out of money or if you have time on your hands, definitely edit those two films. I'm doing that myself with my older films, just as soon as I have a couple of new movies out there in distribution.

Hey, Travis, thank you for the kind words. I checked out some of the work on your website. You have a great voice and you're very professional. I liked everything you've done. I wish I knew how to do flash like that -- wow!

I think a lot about the points you raise. A trailer should be somewhat honest in capturing the movie. I've heard a lot of opinions over the years about this. Some producers believe, "just bring them in, once they buy the ticket, to hell with them..." etc. And then there is the filmmaker who doesn't want to fool the audience at all, to the point of practically saying that, "hey, if you don't like the movie, don't blame me -- I told you it was about this and that" etc. I don't think that either of these approaches are relevant. I think a trailer -- as has been pointed out -- is an artform unto itself. And if it's well made it can be appreciated as a "mini film", as Joey said. When a trailer is well made and someone goes to see that movie, and the movie turns out boring -- well, at least they saw a good trailer. LOL

The question is which trailer editor is going to turn down a paying job even if they hate the movie? Or if the movie is amateurish, will they spoof the movie in the trailer? LOL Maybe the producer wouldn't notice or maybe the producer might like it. "Hey, go ahead, make fun of the movie, I'll cry all the way to the bank." These are just thoughts -- I don't know.

Oh, Dale, that was excellent. I'm going to write your suggestions and use the approach in my re-edit. You caught something in the trailer and that makes me happy. Something worked; I appreciate your pointing it out to me. I can perhaps start with the widow picking up the streetwalker. I can build on that.

<<< my new movie is felliniesque >>>

Good point. Anybody see the trailer for 8-1/2?

Even with all that, there's always a love story buried in there. And don't confuse Fellini with "Everybody ad libs everything all the time." His movies are a lot more highly structured than they look. The reality POV is always clear and well lighted with perfect sound and the dream sequences always look exactly like dream sequences except when it's structurally important that they don't.

Quick, how would you shoot live actors flying over a traffic jam in 1963? No CGI to help out here.

We had a graphic artist who needed to create a "random" pattern of a lot of objects. He was horrified to find out that the only way they looked right was to hand place them all.

<<<Koz, can I use that line verbatim?>>>

Which line? I've been pretty good in this thread. <g>

Koz

I have a lot of experience with improvising, and the hardest thing about it is not getting the actors to do it, but getting the scenes to stay on point. That requires more knowledge about your story and better actors. A script is easier! Or, hundreds of takes and thousands of hours to edit. Because actors must be able to forget about the point of the scene and just improvise and yet still reveal all the important stuff. (We've strayed way beyond the point of this forum!)

My old films are long forgotten. I don't have the guts to throw them away, but I would.

> I'm not bad at judging acting though. It's just that I don't have any money
> to offer and then my new movie is felliniesque -- I need actors who can
> improvise.

Aspire to Fellini if you want, just make sure you're not trying to explain away creative or technical inanities by saying it's "art filmmaking". Some people try to pass the act of rolling in feces as art, as well. Acknowledge the problems. Joe, Frank, a bunch of other people and I have all pointed out that you need a crew. If this group of professionals can tell from your film that it was a "DIY" project, you can bet other people -- at festivals, agencies, production companies -- will be able to tell as well. You're still trying to explain that need away.

Low-budget films do need to cut corners sometimes. But some things -- performance, narrative clarity, pacing -- can't be compromised. Shooting an entire film with no sync sound is an insurmountable problem, especially since you were aiming for a sentimental tone. You can't resort to film-student techniques like jump cuts, bad inserts etc. when you're talking about a scene where you want to be close to the characters and feel what they feel. (This was the only truly bad thing about Narc -- the jump cuts at the end murdered the emotional integrity of Ray Liotta's performance, and it wasn't any fault of the actor's.) When you're shooting something intimate and emotional, you have to achieve technical perfection, or it will infringe upon the emotional thrust of the scene. Look at the very delicate scene between Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, for example, or that elegantly superb scene in the garden between Al Pacino and Marlon Brando in The Godfather, shot and edited simply, so there's unrestricted, uncluttered access to the actors.

And actors are only as good as their director. Low-budget films and bad acting are very often unrelated issues. On the other hand, bad directors and bad acting -- that's a combo made in heaven. Keep in mind that a plethora of great actors made breakthroughs in low-budget films -- Harvey Keitel in Who's That Knocking at My Door, Robert De Niro in Mean Streets, Michael Rooker in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Mark Ruffalo in You Can Count on Me, Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in Reservoir Dogs. You just have to dig out good actors who haven't made it to the big time, recognize their potential, and give them a good script and good direction.

> What made me go see the movie is that I saw Mike Nicholson sticking his
> head through the door

Who's Mike Nicholson? A new up and coming actor I should watch for?

> I have a lot of experience with improvising, and the hardest thing about it is
> not getting the actors to do it, but getting the scenes to stay on point.

Well, staying to the story isn't the actors' job, it's the director's. It's the director's job to contextualize the improvisation and to make sure he has the coverage and the right lines and beats so that he's not missing any narrative beats. An actor who's too story-minded is often self-conscious and controlling, when it's his job to be spontaneous, honest and responsive, rather than trying to guide the narrative.

When I shot my thesis, I threw away all the dialogue for one character in one of the scenes because the dialogue as I'd written it completely jarred with the cadence and speech patterns of the actor I had cast. I still thank God I did, because the actor did just fine when freed of the confines of the writer/director dictatorship.

> Because actors must be able to forget about the point of the scene and just
> improvise and yet still reveal all the important stuff. (We've strayed way
> beyond the point of this forum!)

Indeed, on both counts.

>>> I would consider taking an acting class, but I'm shy. LOL <<<

That is ridiculous, Vic. This is probably THE BEST piece of advice you have gotten and you shrug it off. You know...I was in the Nightclub Biz for 12 years as a Bartender, but I worked every single job on the way up (dishwasher / busboy / waiter / host). It gave me an invaluable insight into relating to those people on the same level (because I did their job) so as to get the best performance from them in their jobs.

Vic,

You have gotten VERY GOOD input from the experienced members here...stuff that you wouldn't get in any school. You seem to be a very nice guy that takes everything with a grain of salt (judging by the many "LOL" comments you make).

OK...stepping back & looking at the big picture that is all your previous posts & threads. You have been asking for & getting all these honest opinions on shooting / editing / directing actors / technical advise / etc...etc...etc. You have offered up many quips on fimmaking (not to mention your amusement at all my input) and something has occurred to me (and I am going to get hammered by the membership for this, but what the hell):

Do you honestly have any previous filmmaking experience or are you learning as you go from input from this forum? One thing for sure, you seem to get a great big kick out of all the attention you are getting

Good Luck.

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

>>Jude, I hadn't seen the new trailer. I don't think it's accurate.<<

Uh, I think you missed the point of the exercise. Never mind.

<<<Uh, I think you missed the point of the exercise. Never mind.>>>

ROTF,LMAO.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Koz

Koz, here's the line I want:

"In a world of shattered relationships and quiet desperation, one woman dared........"

Can I use it?

Jude, I'm sorry, I was not being ungrateful. I did look at the trailers. The new one is long and has many interesting scenes and angles, but I felt like the trailer maker wanted the audience to think of The Shinning as another movie. I think The Shinning was not depicted correctly by the trailer. So I think it was a bad trailer. It may have had a good structure as trailers go, but the trailer maker missed the real essence of the movie.

I appreciate your giving me the links. I learned from both trailers. To tell you the truth, I didn't like The Shinning a lot. It was okay in parts. I was amused at some of the characterizations. (I'm sorry, Derek, I called Jack Nicholson Mike Nicholson -- just the heat :-)

And, Joey, don't worry about it. I agree that going through the levels of any enterprise and doing the jobs -- hands on experience -- that is the best experience. I'd consider taking acting classes if I had the right teacher :-) I actually took a directing course about twenty years ago -- it was really a workshop. All the teachers were actors and the workshop was primarily for actors. I got to appreciate the problems actors are faced with. I did some minor acting, a few scenes here and there. I'm always uncomfortable in front of the camera. I wish I were more of an actor. I think that would've helped me. Everybody's got limitations.

As for the attention, I'm grateful. I feel that by putting up the trailer, I provided the forum with a concrete example and it's much easier to comment on it. It would be very hard for people to help me out if I simply asked what's the best way to edit a trailer? Or even tell them about my movie and ask for advice as to what the trailer should be like.

Thank you for thinking of me as a nice guy. I think deep down you are too; you should open up a little more though. LOL

One of the issues that has been stressed by you, Derek, and many others, is that filmmaking should be always collaborative. I understand the point of view, and by not responding to it directly, it may seem that I'm being disrespectful -- I'm not. I apologize if I've give this impression. I think it's a legitimate point. And maybe I'm wrong by insisting on my choice and preference for personal filmmaking. I've tried to explain my preference but it's fallen on deaf ears, except for the few people who have supported my approach. I would've written more about it, but it's somewhat off the subject.

I'm trying to get advice on how to improve my trailer. It has been stated that my film may be flawed and that no trailer can be made based on a seriously flawed movie. I'm going to review my movie again and see if I can choose different shots and also write a script and come up with a new approach. Derek, Jude and a few others have given me some concrete ideas. That's my next step.

I assure you, Joey, I'm not doing a snow job on this forum.

>>Well, staying to the story isn't the actors' job, it's the director's.<<

Sorry if I implied differently. I meant to say exactly that. Asking the actors to do it is asking for bad, stilted acting.

<<<"In a world of shattered relationships and quiet desperation, one woman dared........">>>

Sure. Go for it. But you still need the guy with That Voice to deliver it.

You will give us all credits when you publish this discussion, right?

Koz

> I did look at the trailers. The new one is long and has many interesting
> scenes and angles, but I felt like the trailer maker wanted the audience to
> think of The Shinning as another movie. I think The Shinning was not
> depicted correctly by the trailer. So I think it was a bad trailer. It may have
> had a good structure as trailers go, but the trailer maker missed the real
> essence of the movie.

Jesus, have you ever heard of parody?

That second trailer for The Shining, in fact, makes for a great example to follow -- which is why Jude recommended it. The editor was able to take a horror film and present it as a sentimental family comedy. The mock trailer has clarity, chose good lines, and brisk pace. The viewer knows what to expect when he goes to this film. And of course, the acting is just fine. An action film would have a different approach, as would a romance, or a historical epic. The mock trailer gives confidence that if the editor were to have to cut a straight horror version of the trailer, he'd be able to do it.

"Quiet desperation?"

Need a less pretentious script.

>I'd consider taking acting classes if I had the right teacher :-) I actually took >a directing course about twenty years ago -- it was really a workshop. All the >teachers were actors and the workshop was primarily for actors.

I wouldn't really call that a directing course. Is that your only real education in film making apart from going out with a camera by yourself and shooting scenes with actors?
Quite a few people have mentioned the bad acting in the trailer but I think if you had captured the sound at the same time as the picture, you would have had a more realistic and honest performance to cut with. As someone else pointed out, bad acting is usually a result of bad directing. However in this case I think it is probably more a case of no directing, as you were probably too busy doing every other job on set, that if you had a crew, would have allowed you more time to actualy "direct" the performances rather than having to worry about loading the camera, rolling the camera, framing the shot, lighting the scene, etc. etc.

No, that's not my only film education, Frank. LOL

Yeah, making a personal film and doing all the crew work is difficult, but it's what I wanted to do.

I entirely don't agree with you on shooting synch sound. There were movies before there was synch sound. I'm sure you've heard of them.

I'm not talking about making a silent movie, albeit silent movies had some kind of musical accompaniment and dialogue on title frames.

Federico Fellini prefered shooting a scene and then reflect on what the actors should be saying. This is what I wanted.

Of course, I didn't want to use a crew for another reason; I wanted to make all the creative decisions myself. I was making a no budget movie. You can find good actors who will do a movie for credit and copy, but you won't find good crew members who will work for that. (I didn't want to use film students and I certainly didn't want to use any crew that didn't have the experience I was looking for -- not many people in Hollywood have heard of Fellini, for example.)

With this film I didn't want anyone to say such a thing as, "there's not enough light" -- and certainly I didn't want anyone telling me how to direct -- that was the point of making the movie by myself.

It wasn't an experiment, to be honest. Because that would be the perfect excuse: I'm making an experimental film.

I wanted to direct the dialogue separately. I knew my actors weren't experienced enough to come up with the performances I expected so I decided to record the sound separately and deal with the synching problems later -- and believe me I had plenty, and as you've noticed there are still out of synch scenes (there are more in the rest of the movie). But as I've said, I prefer watching a dubbed Fellini movie rather than seeing a slick commercial movie that I didn't find at all worth seeing. (I see one to three movies a year -- mostly comedies. I hate violence and pornographic scenes.)

After a couple of hours of shooting with the camera in the blimp, I realized I was going to run out of film and out of money in two days, so I yanked the camera out of the blimp, put the tripod back in my car and started shooting the movie MOS. I feel I made the right choice.

Directing dialogue separately was a lot better than I expected. In fact I was caught off guard. Next time I do a film this way, I'll be sure to take more time doing the dialogue, and I will use other techniques to make synching easier. I'm developing these techniques already.

I'll choose my actors more carefully next time. But I know it's going to be hard finding the right actors for any no budget movie. It's a dilemma.

Why do I want to make movies? Because I'm a filmmaker. I don't want an investor or a producer telling me what to do.

I need actors who are willing to work with me.

Derek, I'll be honest with you, I didn't catch the parody. I know it's stupid, but I sometimes filter out what I don't like anyway -- maybe it's old age LOL. The thing is I didn't like the movie -- as a horror movie. I saw it as a Jack Nicholson movie -- more of a portrayal of madness by a very talented actor. I didn't give a damn about the horror of it. That sickens me anyway; that's what I hate about horror films: they are designed to be horrifying. LOL

I liked the scene at the bar and the ironies of living in the past. What I saw in the movie was something totally different than what this trailer was all about. I know the trailer was trying to capture a wideaudience -- and now I know it was a clever parody. But I still don't like the trailer -- as a trailer and for what it was trying to do. That's where we differ on the whole concept of what trailers are all about. From most of the trailers that I see I don't get the idea of what the film is about. Now I know that when I see a trailer that the real movie is too well hidden for me, so I don't go to see most movies because I know most of the trailers are just a skam. I appreciate the trailers that don't hide the true nature of the movie, because let's face it a lot of moviegoers enjoy horror films. I don't know why for the life of me, but they do.

All this doesn't justify the technical difficulties I'm facing with my small movie. I made many mistakes and I need to address them. I remain appreciative regarding any advice I get to make my trailer better. But I don't have to agree with anybody's assessment of my intentions as a filmmaker or my approach to filmmaking. This is not a filmdebate forum. Although I don't mind debating any issue regarding trailers or filmmaking.

I'm willing to stick to the subject at hand. I'm recutting the trailer and learning new ways to make an honest trailer that can attract the right audience for my little movie.

I respect your approach to filmmaking and NLE expertise. You've all been very generous, and I think this is a great forum.

> I entirely don't agree with you on shooting synch sound. There were movies
> before there was synch sound. I'm sure you've heard of them.

Yeah, and the acting was universally artificial. Try muting the sound and adding intertitles to Meryl Streep's devastating train-station scene in Sophie's Choice, see if you're even *close* to being as moved by the normal version.

You're utterly wrong about this one, Vic. Sync sound is equally important, and in many cases even more important, than image on a dramatic scene. You can have a character walking through spaces and foreground wipes during a scene and not be distressed, but if the sound is screwed up, it takes you right out of the scene. You can't go into some intellectual art-history argument about how "some people used to do it". Using ADR for all your dialogue is flat-out dumb in modern narrative filmmaking. And I can guarantee that your actors will resent it sooner or later. You're basically saying to them, "Don't bother acting on set. We won't hear you because I'm too cheap to hire a sound guy and equipment."

Nobody will even consider giving you a directing gig if you try to shoot all your dramatic scenes MOS.

> Federico Fellini prefered shooting a scene and then reflect on what the
> actors should be saying. This is what I wanted.
> Of course, I didn't want to use a crew for another reason; I wanted to make
> all the creative decisions myself.

At the expense of the actors and performance. Not only are you seriously handicapping your actors in terms of their ability to do their job, but there's a term we have for "making all the creative decisions". It's called credit-hogging.

> I was making a no budget movie. You can find good actors who will do a
> movie for credit and copy, but you won't find good crew members who will
> work for that. (I didn't want to use film students and I certainly didn't want
> to use any crew that didn't have the experience I was looking for -- not
> many people in Hollywood have heard of Fellini, for example.)

And there I'd say is another one of your problems. You *can* get good crew members for credit and copy. Even easier to get good actors, if you would film and record them properly. As it stands, your film -- at least the trailer -- has a heavy "film student doing a feature" feel anyway. Ironically, if you had hired a crew, any crew, a hand-picked and experienced student crew, it probably would've looked more professional.

And what the hell does "having heard of Fellini" have to do with a crew member's ability to do his/her job?

> With this film I didn't want anyone to say such a thing as, "there's not
> enough light"

An experienced crew member would never tell you "no" without good reason.
And that is that the result will probably be problematic. Every small director who tells a sound recordist "Don't worry, we'll fix it in post" ends up crying to mama at the editing stage. You seem to have a distrust for other crew members and that will screw you again and again on your films.

> It wasn't an experiment, to be honest. Because that would be the perfect
> excuse: I'm making an experimental film.

Audiences don't care if a film is experimental or not. For example, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or The Blair Witch Project, or The Fight Club. Those films managed to craft an entertaining, interesting experience and people went to watch. A good film will work on its own without its director being there to tell you that it's experimental and that the viewers should ignore any crap that might be onscreen.

> I wanted to direct the dialogue separately. I knew my actors weren't
> experienced enough to come up with the performances I expected

You are completely out of your mind on this one. Doing ADR on all of the lines will not help an inexperienced actor; it will further destroy the performance. I guarantee you the performances would be easier to stomach if you had recorded their lines as they did it.

Furthermore, even if you had that fear, you should have recorded sync sound on set. That does not prevent you from doing any amount ADR later.

> But as I've said, I prefer watching a dubbed Fellini movie rather than seeing
> a slick commercial movie that I didn't find at all worth seeing.

You keep saying Fellini. Your dubbed dialogue looks more like something from, say, Cannibal Holocaust -- bad '70s Italian grindhouse, a genre in which bad acting is standard.

> After a couple of hours of shooting with the camera in the blimp, I realized I
> was going to run out of film and out of money in two days

Know what that's called?

Bad job budgeting.

Who's the producer?

And what should you do in such a situation? Stop the shoot, raise more money, continue. You don't keep doing a shoot with the wrong method -- you'll just burn more and more money to produce footage that's bad.

This is where you'll argue that maverick filmmakers move on all the time when they run out of money. That is true. But they don't stop recording sound on dramatic scenes, they don't start compromising on things that will kill the film. They go on their knees and beg for two free days of equipment, to their relatives and beg for spending money, to the actors and crew to try to convince them to work a day without a meal.

With the director I work with the most, we started in film school when his camerawoman dropped out of his shoot and he didn't find out until two weeks prior. He got me to do camera, and that evolved into a camera/editor-director relationship going on eight years now. He outgrew my camera operation (a point we never had any arguments about), but I'm still his editor. And back on that first shoot, he had $20 in his bank account and had to shoot in Westchester Airport. His producer got a bus for free to transport crew, and they only had money for morning coffee, no lunch. And we kept going because we knew how broke the director was. And we shot on Hi-8, and one of the senior film students actually thought it was film.

No, I don't have any delusions that this Hi-8 footage really did look like film to anybody with a professional eye. However, my point is, the film got done, the crew was working well and having a good time, and half of that crew still works with that same director today. And a lot of the acting on that film won't shame us even today.

> I'll choose my actors more carefully next time.

Stop blaming your actors and start listening to us. Chang your work method so that you can let the actors do their job.

Sorry if this seems blunt. But I think you need a kick in the ass. You are wading through your dreams of being Fellini, of being a "film artist", and it's a sludge that only slows you down. You're ignoring good sense, professionalism, technical requirements, judgment...methods developed over years and years of filmmaking.

You argue the point very well. As debates go you've won. I'm going to now copy this thread and print it out. I'm going to use it as a critique of the whole movie. I'm sure it's going to help me a great deal. There are things which I cannot improve upon because the movie is what it is and I can't reshoot. The points that I tried to make have been swept aside and that's how debates go. I've lost most of the points and I've lost the debate. I still need to finish my trailer and market the movie. When I have a new trailer, I'll put it up under the same URL, so check in a few days and hopefully I'll have the new trailer there. Thanks again.

>Of course, I didn't want to use a crew for another reason; I wanted to make >all the creative decisions myself.

As a director even if you had a crew of 100 people, you should still be the one making the creative decisions yourself. The director is the where the buck stops. A "good" director would be willing to accept creative input from his/her crew members, but would still make the final decision. No other crew member, even on a large budget shoot, would make a creative decision different from the director's vision, without the consent of the director or they would find themselves looking for a new job.

>The points that I tried to make have been swept aside and that's how >debates go.

Nobody has swept any of your points aside, they have addressed them all, but you continue to sweep aside logical, well thought out answers to your questions and suggestions on how to improve your "film making". After reading all your responses to other people's suggestions on this and many other threads it appears that you are set in your ways and nothing is going to change that. Well that is your prerogative. This is more of a technical forum and you have had many tech questions answered, which is great, but when you come back time and time again asking for "creative input" from the members and you get it, but then sweep it aside and make excuses as to why you do things the way you do, then you are just wasting bandwidth. If you had used a crew (even if it was film students) and asked them for half as much creative input as you have asked of the members of this forum after the fact, then maybe you would at least have something decent to work with in post. From what I have seen so far of your movie, you will have a very limited audience of maybe a few friends and family members who will be willing to tell you how great you are for doing it all by yourself. I'm sorry, that may be a bit harsh but you did ask for no holds barred comments.

<<<I'm going to use it as a critique of the whole movie. >>>

Why would you do that? We haven't seen the whole movie.

Koz

I understand the wish to make all the creative decisions, but you don't have to work without a crew to do so. Creative input is something a director can take or leave at their discretion - the better your crew and those who input creative ideas are then then the better the choices you are provided with to make.

Quote

I didn't want to use film students

To be quite honest with you i think that was not a good choice. As frank just said, If you had asked them for half as much creative input as you have asked here, then maybe you would at least have something half decent to work with in post.

I honestly cannot imagine anyone being keen to sit down and watch the whole film after watching the trailer, let alone willing to part with money to do so.

Hi again Vic,

First, thank YOU for the kind comments.

(1) As I stated before, one of the reasons I decided NOT to attempt a career in film directing is that it IS a collaborative medium. I like to do things myself. Since I do work in showbiz, even at my level, I do have to accept the fact that I must collaborate - I need to work with other people and allow their creative work into my "art". I get around this by doing some little productions all by myself - the Flash pieces on my web site that you liked were some of those - there's where I get to be the "Artiste". The minute you have an actor in your film, you've lost much of the kind of control that you and I seem to need in order to maintain our "creative vision". If you must have that in your film productions, you might want to consider making documentaries.

(2) One of the great resources we have here in Southern California is the Samuel French Bookstore. There you will find hundreds (Thousads?) of biographies, autobiographies, and other works about and by film directors and motion pictures. I've read a number of these over the years. One common thread I've found is the two most important characteristis of the great directors is that they worked very hard to (a) obtain power, and to (b) release control.

Now that may sound contradictory, but the reason power was so importatnt to them was that it gave them the ability to get people they trusted - so that they could release control to people they knew could do the job.

In my own case, the road that lead me to my current voice-over carreer was through being a recording engineer for a while. I was considered by many to be the production engineer in my market. I have my own studio, which can do excellent work. Where is my best voice-over work done? -certainly NOT at my own studio. My best voice-over work is done elsewhere. Even though I have the facilities and ability to make a good recording, when I divide my energy into two different areas, both suffer.

(3) My acting coach says that the top directors he works with seem to excercise very little control on the set. The directors "on the lower end of the Hollywood food chain" need to micro-manage everything, the worst actually giving actors "line readings". He describes working on a scene with Speilberg and DiCaprio something like this:

"He asks us to run through the scene, to see what we're going to do. The DP and someone else, take a few notes as we run through our dialogue. The lighting guy needs to make a few adjustments, since I need to rise from a desk, walk out of the office and down a hall as we cary on our conversation. This was a key point in the movie, plot-wise, and the ONLY direction I got from Steve, was that he wanted me to take off my glasses so the camera could get a close-up and see the expression in my eyes at one point."

Time and time again, I've found, it's giving up control that gives you the most and best artistic expression.

Good luck,

-Travis



Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Travis makes some great points. The best directors I've worked with have been the ones who had given me a wide berth. Then they'd come in, want to change some things, and if necessary, we'd have a discussion before proceeding. Sometimes they conceded to my idea, sometimes they were right to discard what I've done. The process is rich and fulfilling for both parties. It's not a confrontation in a healthy editing room; it's a dialectic.

> Now that may sound contradictory, but the reason power was so important
> to them was that it gave them the ability to get people they trusted - so
> that they could release control to people they knew could do the job.

And the director still gets to say "No, I appreciate your idea but I have a different one in mind". This is even more important with actors. Actors who are just puppets to the director are not the good actors. Great actors bring their own nuances, things that a filmmaker would not think of. A great actor knows when his/her character went to bed three days ago. Do you?

> (3) My acting coach says that the top directors he works with seem to
> excercise very little control on the set.

I believe they exercise their control without seeming to, or feeling the need to. Great directors have a firm grasp on artistic expression -- after all, film is not a democracy -- but they also accept your ideas and consider them, and make you feel like part of the process. Such a director, with artistic vision, inspires the crew to want to do its best. An ambitious crew with strong ideas is what you want, not a passive, obedient one that just executes everything you ask for and nothing else.

I always like to say that back in film school, the worst key crew members weren't the ones working for free; it was the ones being paid below rate who felt like they were "doing the film a favour". I paid my DP $550; my director partner paid his DP $1100. The $1100 DP, shooting on DV, produced three different lighting situations on one scene; my DP was flawless. Because the people who are talented and are working for free want something for their reel. They want to blow you away, they're hungry for success and creative achievement. The people working below rate "as a favour" are there to fill a spot, and they're constantly checking their watch. Or, as in the case of my friend's DP, he wreaked havoc on the schedule by spending six hours to light the opening scene, which looks great -- and then the rest of the film looked mostly like available light. He then "borrowed" our footage before editing began, and we were missing six tapes. We kept asking him to give back the tapes, and when they finally came back, guess where those tapes were cued to?

Right after the opening-scene footage.

He accepted the job of shooting this film just to do the opening scene for his reel. And let the rest of the film go to rot lighting-wise.

Guess whether the director called him back again on his next film.

> The directors "on the lower end of the Hollywood food chain" need to micro-
> manage everything, the worst actually giving actors "line readings".

I had one director who asked two actors to shake their heads on a take for three minutes straight just because they weren't shaking their heads in perfect unison the way she wanted. One of them had to do a line about 12 times back to back because the director didn't like the line reading. I could tell near the end she was nervous, unhappy, and self-conscious -- you would be too, if there's a whole crew watching as the director tells you you're not doing the right job. The poor actors were perfectly humiliated, and instead of giving better performances in subsequent takes, their acting decayed irreversibly because they were nervous and ashamed.