archived-videos Director Demo Reel

[HMSanchez87]

I just want to see what people think of my Demo Reel. I created it a few months back but never got a really good critique. I’ve gotten 2 directing gigs (a Short and a Feature) because of it, but I still want to here from the community.

Director Demo Reel: https://vimeo.com/38614957

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Whilst I agree with you, the Director's job is not to record sound, edit the picture or mix the ADR.
The Director's job is the actors. A Director is primarily focussed on the actors and then discussing with the DP about the shots.
As I've mentioned previously, it can depend on the film as to how much responsibility the Director has over the other aspects, most Director's must 'okay' everything before it gets on screen (ie costuem decisions, prop decisions etc.) but their main focus is the actor and the actor's performance. At the end of the day, the film is the Producer's even if the Director will cop the flak for a bad film.

I have absolutely no idea where you've got this idea from. I've worked with dozens of directors in my 20 years as a professional, I've met and discussed film with hundreds more and I've exchanged experiences with hundreds of my professional peers. Not a single one of them would share your view on the role of the film director. Of course the Director's role is not to record the sound, edit the picture or mix the ADR, any more than it's the Director's role to act in the film. The Director's role is to direct the film, all of it, not just the actors, maybe you're getting confused with the role of Acting Coach? I've never known a director not to spend every single minute of the picture editing not sat next to the editor. A director not to direct all the ADR sessions or not to be directing the final mix is unthinkable! I've never even heard of such a thing, let alone experienced it. Producers maybe very pro-active or you may rarely see them but whatever the level of direct involvement of the producer, the director is always present, directing.

While not using any live actors, I'm sure Pixar will be delighted to learn they no longer need to employ a director, they can leave it all to the Producer, CGI Supervisor, Supervising Sound Editor and other department heads. Your assertion of the director's role or main role is quite frankly ridiculous!

My point was - every other department has a specialist in charge of it.... A Director hires experts in other fields so that they can focus on acting.

Not only is your information incorrect but your argument makes no logical sense. First of all, contrary to your statement above, not one of the creative departments have a specialist in charge of them. Take for example sound, the Supervising Sound Editor is, as the title suggests, a supervisor, the head of the sound department, but the supervising sound editor is not in charge of the sound, the Director is! Logically, your argument only makes sense if the director does all the acting themselves but of course they don't, they hire acting specialists (actors) to do the acting, the same as they hire a specialist editor, DOP, composer or supervising sound editor and all of them require an equal amount of focus and directing.

The directors job is pretty much identical to the orchestra conductor's job. The orchestral musician's job is to creatively interpret their part of the score, the conductor's job is to provide an overall vision of the whole score and to accomplish this the conductor must direct the musicians' interpretations. Without a conductor, the performance would be a chaos of different musicians' interpretations. So it is with the director and the making of a film.

The equivalent of what you're suggesting would be a conductor whose primary focus is the 1st Violins and who lets the principle horn, principle cello and all the other section principles get on with it themselves (because they are in charge of their department) and your argument for this would be, they are the specialists and what's the point of having section principles if it's not to allow the conductor to focus on the 1st Violins?!

G

 

[jax_rox]

I have absolutely no idea where you've got this idea from. I've worked with dozens of directors in my 20 years as a professional, I've met and discussed film with hundreds more and I've exchanged experiences with hundreds of my professional peers. Not a single one of them would share your view on the role of the film director. Of course the Director's role is not to record the sound, edit the picture or mix the ADR, any more than it's the Director's role to act in the film. The Director's role is to direct the film, all of it, not just the actors, maybe you're getting confused with the role of Acting Coach? I've never known a director not to spend every single minute of the picture editing not sat next to the editor. A director not to direct all the ADR sessions or not to be directing the final mix is unthinkable! I've never even heard of such a thing, let alone experienced it. Producers maybe very pro-active or you may rarely see them but whatever the level of direct involvement of the producer, the director is always present, directing.

Why then is an acting coach called an acting coach and not the Actor's Director? My 'idea' of a Director comes from working on sets. Take for example a television show with a different Director for each episode - it's hardly the Director's job to oversee the entire thing when they're only on for one episode. That's why there are other roles on board. Just as I know some Directors will sit there and dictate editing choices, others won't. Others are brought on simply to serve the purpose of directing actors. Sure, if a Director is also the writer, or has been brought on in the writing stages, perhaps they will want greater control over the picture. However, I don't know many Directors who would describe the main part of their role as 'dictating the edit' for example. Even someone like Fincher isn't there for the entirety of the edit, or the sound design and rather comes in at points and critiques what he likes and doesn't like - much the same as the DoP sits in on the colour timing with the Director. You couldn't say that the main purpose of the DoP's job is to sit in on the colour timing, but it is an aspect. Just as possibly dictating edits, or directing actors on an ADR stage is part of a Director's job, but it isn't the reason a Director is brought on board. Also, in my experience it's people like Sound Re-Recording Mixers who, along with the Director, help decide what parts of sound should go where, not the Director's alone. Hence why experts in other fields are hired. The Director certainly has the final say, but it is not necessarily in his job description to sit in on the edit, just as it's not in the DPs job description to sit in on the colour timing. DPs do it these days to have more control over their images, just as Director's do it to have more control over their films. Does that mean the main focus of a DP has changed? No. Why then, should it mean that a Director's main focus should change?

Not only is your information incorrect but your argument makes no logical sense. First of all, contrary to your statement above, not one of the creative departments have a specialist in charge of them.
Take for example sound, the Supervising Sound Editor is, as the title suggests, a supervisor, the head of the sound department, but the supervising sound editor is not in charge of the sound, the Director is! Logically, your argument only makes sense if the director does all the acting themselves but of course they don't, they hire acting specialists (actors) to do the acting, the same as they hire a specialist editor, DOP, composer or supervising sound editor and all of them require an equal amount of focus and directing.

What purpose then does the Supervising Sound Editor serve? They may take cues from the Director, just as a DP does, but at the end of the day the Director isn't the one lighting it, operating the camera, shooting the shots... Whilst it will often be discussed with the Director, why would the DP sit down with the Production Designer to design the look for the film in Pre, if it is the Director who is in charge of it?
If the Director's role is not to focus on acting, who then dictates what the actor does? Or are they left to their own devices, forced to 'direct themselves'? I was not suggesting that other areas do not require directing, but one could also not assert that the actor's do not require directing. If a Director's main focus is not the actors, why then is a DP, Production Designer, Editor, Sound Designer etc. hired? Why not simply hire a Camera Operator, Set Dresser, Edit Assistant, etc.? If the Director must focus on all of these things at once, why does he hire seperate specialists to do them? If a Director's focus on set is not the actors, then what is his purpose other than to call 'Cut'? Micro-managing the camera? Why then hire a DP? Micro-managing the design? Why then hire a Production Designer? Running the set? Why then hire a 1st AD?

Mind you, I'm not suggesting in Pre- and Post-Production that the actors is the Director's main focus, just on set I would assert that the actor's should be the Director's main focus. Obviously he needs to have his mind across everything, and needs to ensure everything is working towards a certain vision, but the main focus of a Director on set should not be the cinematography, or the production design for example. He needs to have a handle on those things, but the main focus should be getting the performance out of the actors. To see it as merely a small aspect and not a main aspect is as I say.. somewhat odd.
Take for example a non-actor - plenty of those around, especially in children. How do you think they give such amazing performances? Just by chance? A mere fluke? Or from a Directing working hard and making sure they get a certain performance out of them?

From a technical standpoint, you could make a film without a Director. The acting would have no real direction, and may be sloppy but the film could still end up made if it was wanted to be.

 

[Michael Allen]

Yes it is the directors job to oversea the acting. And in film it is also the directors job to oversea all the elements of the film from pre production to post.
In TV where different directors direct different episodes It is common ( but not always the case ) for the director to not be involved in post production and the shows producer takes over. At least that's the way it goes here in Australia.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

However, I don't know many Directors who would describe the main part of their role as 'dictating the edit' for example.

If we exchange the word "dictating" for "directing", then my answer would be: Then you don't know many directors! Maybe you've never heard of Tarantino, Coppola, Spielberg, Cameron (etc., etc., etc.)? When you wrap production, you've got nothing except a pile of ingredients, editing is where the film is made. As I said in a previous post in this thread, Pre-Production and Production exist for the sole purpose of providing the raw materials for Post-Production! If a filmmaker were forced to choose one area of filmmaking more important than any other it would have to be post-production. It is possible to create a film designed for cinema or TV broadcast without any pre-production or production but it is not possible to create a film without post-production.

Just as possibly dictating edits, or directing actors on an ADR stage is part of a Director's job, but it isn't the reason a Director is brought on board.

Yes it is! Look, it's not so hard to understand, the clue is in the title! A Film Director is hired to direct the film, not just certain bits of the film or just the actors but all of it.

Also, in my experience it's people like Sound Re-Recording Mixers who, along with the Director, help decide what parts of sound should go where, not the Director's alone.

It's not the re-recording mixer's job at all to decide what sounds go where. The supervising sound editor (SSE) will sit with the director and go through the film virtually a frame at a time and discuss what sounds should go where, this process is called spotting. While the SSE can make suggestions, these suggestions are based on the Director's vision which the SSE should have a very good understanding of if he/she has been employed since the pre-production phase. Without exception though the director is in charge and always has the final decision. But I don't get your point, how is this any different to how the director will direct an actor? Do actors never make any suggestions or have any creative input into how they portray their characters?

If the Director's role is not to focus on acting, who then dictates what the actor does? Or are they left to their own devices, forced to 'direct themselves'? I was not suggesting that other areas do not require directing, but one could also not assert that the actor's do not require directing.

Who's asserting that actors do not need directing? Can you point out a post of mine where I stated this so I can change it.

My 'idea' of a Director comes from working on sets. Take for example a television show with a different Director for each episode - it's hardly the Director's job to oversee the entire thing when they're only on for one episode.

"Working on set" represents a small fraction of the total involvement and responsibilities of a film director, so if this is your only point of reference I'm not surprised you have limited understanding of the role of the film director.

The OP is an indy filmmaker and this web forum is dedicated to filmmaking so my answers are in this context, rather than in the context of soap operas, news broadcasts, live chat shows or other forms of quick turnover TV with completely different workflows, which may not require the director to be involved in post-production or have overall responsibility. However, over a period of many years I have worked on a considerable number of high quality episodic TV dramas with different directors for different episodes and it is precisely "the Director's job to oversee the entire thing when they're only on for one episode". You have now changed your argument and are talking about a very narrow segment of tv programming which in many respects is unrelated to filmmaking or this thread.

You originally stated: "The Director's job is the actors. A Director is primarily focussed on the actors and then discussing with the DP about the shots. ... The Director does bring the collaboration together and make sure everyone is on the same page, but their main focus is the actors."

You're now your changing argument to the director's main focus on set should be the actors but that's not what you said in your original post. We were talking about a director's role in general and there was no mention in your original post about only the director's role on set. But even if that had been your original argument, what you stated is still not entirely true. What happens if the filming on set or location is panoramic views or doesn't include the actors for some other reason, does the director just not go to work that day and leave it all to the DOP?

I could provide more arguments but I think what is happing here is trolling, so I won't waste my time.

Sanchez: I will critique one of the works you linked to a bit later or tomorrow. I didn't "punk out" as was suggest by someone else, I just went to bed as it was pretty late in my time zone.

 

[HMSanchez87]

Sanchez: I will critique one of the works you linked to a bit later or tomorrow. I didn't "punk out" as was suggest by someone else, I just went to bed as it was pretty late in my time zone.

I appreciate that.

 

[HMSanchez87]

The scene that really I liked, is where the guy awakens and stands up. You focus (Red Herring style) on his neck piercings and then the girl leans in with, "I'm right here." Then it cuts to him in the dark bar. I think you already used good shots, but I wanted the "crawling over the lights" shot to end as soon as the camera booms to include your main character's face.

Not that you should use it, but the handheld shot, where he is first trying to get out of the bar, was cool. The creature crawling over the bar top in the dark was just there long enough that I had to go back to make sure that was what I saw. Creepy.

Great, I'll take that into mind. If you would like, I have another short film that is finished, not as much fantasy or horror but I'm sending it off to a few film festivals but I wouldn't mind you watching it and giving me a critique on it either.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'll watch it!

 

[HMSanchez87]

I'll watch it!

Sweet, it's called "A Real Hero" and its still a thriller but it has point to it. Also pay especially mind to the letter that the heroin picks up in his car. I think you will like it.

Here is the link: https://vimeo.com/42908830 and I will send you the password in a PM. Just comment on it in this thread and tell me what you think.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Sounds good. And now's a good time for me to watch it, actually.

 

[HMSanchez87]

Sounds good. And now's a good time for me to watch it, actually.

Sent, thanks again for your interest lol.

 

[jax_rox]

If we exchange the word "dictating" for "directing", then my answer would be: Then you don't know many directors! Maybe you've never heard of Tarantino, Coppola, Spielberg, Cameron (etc., etc., etc.)? When you wrap production, you've got nothing except a pile of ingredients, editing is where the film is made. As I said in a previous post in this thread, Pre-Production and Production exist for the sole purpose of providing the raw materials for Post-Production! If a filmmaker were forced to choose one area of filmmaking more important than any other it would have to be post-production. It is possible to create a film designed for cinema or TV broadcast without any pre-production or production but it is not possible to create a film without post-production.

I was not suggesting that they don't dictate edits (though some don't), but it is not the main function of a Director. Any more than discussing sound edits is the main function of the Director. It's certainly an aspect of what they do, but you wouldn't go through an entire pre- and production process without a Director, only to bring him on to dictate the edits, at least in terms of live action narrative.
You're obviously coming at this from a Post perspective, which is obvious that a Director's role in post is not to focus on the actors - that is ludicrous, there are no actors to focus on in post. I'm coming at it from an on set perspective. On set their main focus should be the actors.

Without exception though the director is in charge and always has the final decision. But I don't get your point, how is this any different to how the director will direct an actor? Do actors never make any suggestions or have any creative input into how they portray their characters?

I'm not suggesting that at all? I'm merely suggesting that on set, the Director should be focussed on the actors, not on the miniscule details of the other departments, otherwise why does he not perform the roles himself?

"Working on set" represents a small fraction of the total involvement and responsibilities of a film director, so if this is your only point of reference I'm not surprised you have limited understanding of the role of the film director.

Working on set is what directing actors is about. When else are actors on board? In post? No. So then, why would one assume we were talking about anything but on set?
Also, in terms of live action, there would be no post without the small fraction of 'working on set'. I would also suggest that working on set is bigger than a small fraction of the production, but again we're coming at it from two different angles.

You have now changed your argument and are talking about a very narrow segment of tv programming which in many respects is unrelated to filmmaking or this thread.

Not at all, merely providing an example. A Director of a single episode isn't going to sit and make decisions for the entire series, for example.

You're now your changing argument to the director's main focus on set should be the actors but that's not what you said in your original post. We were talking about a director's role in general and there was no mention in your original post about only the director's role on set. But even if that had been your original argument, what you stated is still not entirely true.

I'm not changing my argument at all, why would one suggest that directing actors is the focus of a Director in post? Where there are no actors? It's the internet, not a thesis haha. If something is worded somewhat badly, so what? Damn, I left out two words in my OP. Oops.
I think it was fairly obvious that I was suggesting on set, rather than in other stages of production as there are no actors in the other stages of production.

I could provide more arguments but I think what is happing here is trolling, so I won't waste my time.

Not trolling at all, simply trying to make the point that you can't say a Director's role does not involve a focus on directing actors, at least on set. If you think a Director's role on set doesn't involve a major focus on directing actors, then you (obviously) have no set experience.
I think what's happened here is you're obviously experienced in post, and I'm experienced on set. What we are saying is both correct, just in the different stages of production.
Note also, that I said the Director's main focus should be directing actors, not his only focus. And that refers to on set, not in all stages of production (i thought that was fairly obvious).

Anyway, enough of this hostility

 

[Cracker Funk]

Cool, man. Nice job. Thanks for letting me watch it. It's fun being able to see stuff before it's available for the rest of the world.

I've just got a few comments, and only one that I think is really note-worthy.

The music. Is it too late to make changes? Because when stuff starts to get really bad, the music almost sounds romantic. It's really off-putting. Before stuff gets really bad, I thought the music was a nice slow build of tension. From somewhere around 1:35 to 2:25, I really think the music should be very, very dark. And I don't see why your composer shouldn't be able to transition from that to the heroic music that he ends with.

And then a couple smaller nit-picky things: I find it distracting when a shot is out of focus, even if just for a split second. There were a couple times when this happened. They were longer shots, with lots of camera movement, in which the rest of the shot is perfectly in focus. If there is any creative way to edit out the very brief out-of-focus moments, I would probably do it.

The letter -- is the audience supposed to be able to read what it is? I could only actually make out a few words, and couldn't tell for sure what it was. A rejection-letter of some sort? If it's crucial to understanding the story, do you have any close-ups of it (or can you do a pick-up shot)?

I hope it has a successful festival run. Cheers!

 

[Cracker Funk]

Jax, AudioPost -- I have a great deal of respect for both of your opinions. But this conversation is kind of hijacking a thread that is supposed to be about a specific demo reel. And it's really only the OP who is allowed to take it off-topic. Besides, you're both right, and you're both wrong. This is art, and there is not any one correct way of doing things. By the way, pretty much every regular contributor has taken a thread off-topic, especially myself included. So, I'm not judging, just sayin.

EDIT: new thread created, to properly explore this subject

 

[HMSanchez87]

Cool, man. Nice job. Thanks for letting me watch it. It's fun being able to see stuff before it's available for the rest of the world.

I've just got a few comments, and only one that I think is really note-worthy.

The music. Is it too late to make changes? Because when stuff starts to get really bad, the music almost sounds romantic. It's really off-putting. Before stuff gets really bad, I thought the music was a nice slow build of tension. From somewhere around 1:35 to 2:25, I really think the music should be very, very dark. And I don't see why your composer shouldn't be able to transition from that to the heroic music that he ends with.

And then a couple smaller nit-picky things: I find it distracting when a shot is out of focus, even if just for a split second. There were a couple times when this happened. They were longer shots, with lots of camera movement, in which the rest of the shot is perfectly in focus. If there is any creative way to edit out the very brief out-of-focus moments, I would probably do it.

The letter -- is the audience supposed to be able to read what it is? I could only actually make out a few words, and couldn't tell for sure what it was. A rejection-letter of some sort? If it's crucial to understanding the story, do you have any close-ups of it (or can you do a pick-up shot)?

I hope it has a successful festival run. Cheers!

Thanks, glad you liked it. The thing with music is, the composer does full on tracks, I forgot what kind of composer there are technically called. I would have to find a completely new track or find someone to score the film directly.

The letter isn't crucial to the story, since it's more about making a choice to save a life instead of walking away from the situation. The letter is a "rejection letter from the police academy" and the problem was, we had 3 copy's of the letter. The weather was extremely humid and when we got to the extreme close up, the paper actually melted in the actors hand and we was running out of time. The only shot we got off with the first 2 copy's was the medium and the medium close up, which is the one you see. The extreme close up was the last copy and it was like toilet paper by the time we got to it.

 

[HMSanchez87]

Adding To The Topic: What Defines a Director

I don't mind the debate between "AudioPostExpert" and "jax_rox", as long as we all keep it civil, plus I respect them as well and there opinions. Don't want another altercation. But please don't forget about also to check out my Demo Reel or any of the projects that I have posted. You can critique them, or just talk to me about them. Thanks everyone.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Having watched "Shadows of the Mind", I'll give my impressions. I'll focus on the sound as that's my area and because others have commented on the visuals and other areas.

In a sequence or short of this type, where you're playing around with different realities, sound design can be an incredibly powerful tool. It can help the audience to understand and experience what is supposed to be reality and what is supposed to be dream state or it can help to blur the edges even further or it can create a more coherent combination of both. More than that though, it can help us (the audience) get inside the head of the character, experience what we're seeing from his POV. Unfortunately, there is almost no sound design in your short, except for some reverb on the dialogue in places and the odd SFX.

Let me give you an example: After the disembodied voice exits we have a cut to our character stumbling through a closed-down bar area and then another cut of him closing a door. Is this supposed to be one continuous scene with the first cut to the deserted bar being just a different angle of the same scene or are they all supposed to different scenes/times/events? If this sequence is all supposed to be just different angles and cuts of the same scene, sound design could have helped the audience to understand this. One way of doing this would be to create an ambience, maybe of a bar and maybe treated to feel a little surreal to give the impression we are inside the character's head rather than reality. We would need to keep this designed ambience running from the instant we cut to this scene until the scene ends, which would then act to tie the scene together in the audience's mind. At the moment though you have created the opposite effect by having no sound at all (just music) and then sound for the cut to the door closing, which creates a sound dis-continuity and therefore implies a different place/time.

Another example, the scene with the lights on the floor, it looks interesting from a cinematography point of view and the music adds pace and drama but why does the scene exist, what part of the story is it trying to tell? Again, sound design could have helped to contextualise this scene.

In general your short demonstrates a lot of imagination and creativity and some skill with cinematography and shot composition. You have managed to tell a story and that's 100% of what making a film is all about! But, good sound design could have linked your ideas more effectively and/or helped the audience to actually experience your character and his story rather than just be a spectator. The telling of the story would then have been substantially more effective.

Sound design is a very specialised area of film making, in many ways even more specialised than music composition and many of those who call themselves sound designers have little idea what it actually means, let alone are able to do it well. IMHO, this is why many indy filmmakers tend to ignore, avoid or just not appreciate it's potential and why so many indy films seem dis-jointed and uninvolving.

Hope this is useful?

G

 

[HMSanchez87]

Sound design is a very specialised area of film making, in many ways even more specialised than music composition and many of those who call themselves sound designers have little idea what it actually means, let alone are able to do it well. IMHO, this is why many indy filmmakers tend to ignore, avoid or just not appreciate it's potential and why so many indy films seem dis-jointed and uninvolving.

Hope this is useful?

G

It was very helpful, and I agree completely with what you said. I would even say, we indie filmmakers are scared to do sound design because we either don't have an expert on hand or don't have anyone who can do it, in a general sense. So we would rather avoid it, instead of trying to do it on our own and give a mediocre experience because of our lack of knowledge towards sound design.

I myself have been watching tutorials, behind the scenes, and even the history of sound design for the past few months, to learn it for myself and improve any future projects I do. If you watched "A Real Hero", the short I did after "Shadows of The Mind" it has more sound design then "Shadows" did and my next project release "Lockdown" will even have more sound design then both of them together, because as I learn more about the art style, the more I can add to my projects.