A lot of big name actors get their debuts to direct, but how do a lot of them do so well, when they haven't even made any short films before? They just go straight from acting to directing, it seems without having any previous material reviewed, to see if it's any good, or get any feedback. At least none that I can find.
How do actors do so well on their directorial debuts when...?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Hey I've shot a lot of footage so far, and am experimenting and willing to learn. But telling me it can all be done simultaneously and then not telling me how or saying it cannot afterwords, doesn't really help, with all do respect.
Last edited:
I guess you and I are in a similar boat. I've had trouble putting together a team to shoot some of my stuff as well. I've even offered to pay. Never came together, so what am I doing now. I continue to write and I'm putting the money I would have paid for someone to shoot my films into buying equipment. I'm starting with the camera/lenses, then something to edit with, then sound system, then some lighting, then more stuff for the camera, etc etc. My point,if I have one, is no one needed to tell me to do that. Somethings you just need to figure out. You can study how to ride a bike until you're 30, butuntil you get your ass on the on the seat and your fingers around the handle bars, you'll never be able to ride a bike.
So, figure it out man. You know your own situation better than anyone here. So study as much as you can and APPLY that information to your situation. If you still can't figure it out then, I don't know what to tell you.
So, figure it out man. You know your own situation better than anyone here. So study as much as you can and APPLY that information to your situation. If you still can't figure it out then, I don't know what to tell you.
Last edited:
Depends on your circumstances and, as pointed out above, budget.
If you have $75000 to spend on a feature, for instance, the advice on how to record sound and any camera recommendations are going to take that budget into consideration. i.e. hire sound recordists, buy a prosumer camera, travel to far-off locations to get the exact look you want.
Conversely, if you say you want to make a short film with zero budget, very little equipment and only friends for crew, the advice is going to be significantly different. i.e. put the mic on a stand, borrow your neighbour's T2i, try to create the illusion of a desert using clever camera angles and establishing shots.
Just a thought.
Last edited:
Harmonica - I've figured out how you get your experience without a cast or crew, you can do shorts like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoBs3FcGgRs
Harmonica, I want to make an series of illustration for you, because i think illustrations helps people understand things.
First, why do directors have to learn about camera and editing and acting and sound if those jobs are going to be done by other people? well...
When you were in school, you learnt maths, you learnt English, you learnt art, you learnt history and you learnt science. You might have also learnt some instruments
BUT did you become a mathematician? no. did you become scholar in Shakespearean study? no. did you become the next Picasso? no. did you become a historian? no. did you become a theoritical physics or become the mozart of the new era? no.
HOWEVER, did all those things help you? YES! They helped you better understand the world around you in all aspect, not to mention aid you in learning self control, time management, socialization, as well as seeing things from different perspectives. Sure a lot of the knowledge you later go on to forget. (eg. I got a scholarship when i was in high school for chemistry but now i can't even recite the first 20 elements on the periodic table.) But the essence of those subjects stays with you. You get a good sense of things.
SO Filmmaking is exactly the same. When you are beginning. You need, you absolutely NEED to have a go at all aspects of it yourself. You don't have to go to a film school and study a degree, majoring in each and every single one of those, but you need to understand them. So that later on, when you are working with actors, lighting people, editors, camera men, you'll know what they mean when they talk to you. So when they ask if you want a 3 point lighting with shallow field of focus, or whether you plan for a additive dissolve between the clip, you'll know what they mean, and you'll know what it looks like, so you'll be able to make those decisions as a director.
Conclusion? Start small, start as if you are a child, first day at kinder garden. Kinder garden teachers don't usually give 3rd order ordinary differential equations out as homework for the first day. Forget about lighting, forget about the boom stick, forget about the actors even. Just you, and a cheap handheld camera. Go out and do a film with your toys like what Alcove Audio suggest. Though stop animations can take a bit of time, in which case, Just have your hand in there. See your hand moving the characters around. Or go out and make a documentary about your neighborhood. Port it to computer and add voice over plus some nice music. Forget about color correction or sound effects.
When you are done with that, post it here, we'll all give you some feedback and encouragement (Won't we guys?) And you can go on to do your next short, maybe with 1 actor, or with a slightly longer story. Just take it one step at a time. It's how all of us made the first step.
First, why do directors have to learn about camera and editing and acting and sound if those jobs are going to be done by other people? well...
When you were in school, you learnt maths, you learnt English, you learnt art, you learnt history and you learnt science. You might have also learnt some instruments
BUT did you become a mathematician? no. did you become scholar in Shakespearean study? no. did you become the next Picasso? no. did you become a historian? no. did you become a theoritical physics or become the mozart of the new era? no.
HOWEVER, did all those things help you? YES! They helped you better understand the world around you in all aspect, not to mention aid you in learning self control, time management, socialization, as well as seeing things from different perspectives. Sure a lot of the knowledge you later go on to forget. (eg. I got a scholarship when i was in high school for chemistry but now i can't even recite the first 20 elements on the periodic table.) But the essence of those subjects stays with you. You get a good sense of things.
SO Filmmaking is exactly the same. When you are beginning. You need, you absolutely NEED to have a go at all aspects of it yourself. You don't have to go to a film school and study a degree, majoring in each and every single one of those, but you need to understand them. So that later on, when you are working with actors, lighting people, editors, camera men, you'll know what they mean when they talk to you. So when they ask if you want a 3 point lighting with shallow field of focus, or whether you plan for a additive dissolve between the clip, you'll know what they mean, and you'll know what it looks like, so you'll be able to make those decisions as a director.
Conclusion? Start small, start as if you are a child, first day at kinder garden. Kinder garden teachers don't usually give 3rd order ordinary differential equations out as homework for the first day. Forget about lighting, forget about the boom stick, forget about the actors even. Just you, and a cheap handheld camera. Go out and do a film with your toys like what Alcove Audio suggest. Though stop animations can take a bit of time, in which case, Just have your hand in there. See your hand moving the characters around. Or go out and make a documentary about your neighborhood. Port it to computer and add voice over plus some nice music. Forget about color correction or sound effects.
When you are done with that, post it here, we'll all give you some feedback and encouragement (Won't we guys?) And you can go on to do your next short, maybe with 1 actor, or with a slightly longer story. Just take it one step at a time. It's how all of us made the first step.
You can learn from seeing professionals do their job. Sitting at home and thinking about seeing or doing is never going to get you very far, though.
I don't know this for certain, but I suspect many first time actors-turned-director consult a co-director for advise on a daily basis. Makes good sense if their ego can afford it and ultimately probably makes their first film the best it can be until they're fully ready to take the training wheels off.
They have many, many hours watching directors at work, and they have a 1st AD to do all the grunt work they may not understand like shot lists, etc...
Okay well thanks people. I am making a couple of shorts right now, but I am forced to do things like use ADR since I am still learning to do shooting and sound simultaneously. And since I am mostly the only actor I can find to help me out, I have to shoot myself without being able to move the camera, or monitor the audio. So I'm doing a lot of methods that I will not use when making my first real short, I wanna submit. But I am learning how to use the equipment so I know what I will want when working with people I hire for the real short. When you guys make your first submittable short, do you hire a sound person and cameraman or do you still do it all yourself usually?
Submittable as in, submitted on IndieTalk? I've got stuff up there now looking dark with not brilliant audio receiving excellent feedback which I can use to improve my skills
Where? I'll take care of this.
JK
One reason is that "Director" isn't actually the most demanding job on the film in terms of talent and skill. (once you have a large crew) (auteur, which is what most readers of this forum are, is different) As several have said before, having money builds a buffer of competent people around you. So when Ben Affleck does something stupid as a director, there's some guy in the shadows with 25 years editing experience that makes it like it never happened. Money really obscures talent. By the time they spend 40 mil on a picture, it's hard to tell who's work you're really liking. To see that you have to observe a pattern over multiple films with different casts. Ron Howard turned out to be pretty good. Ben Affleck didn't.
I know you're from Boston dude, you don't have to write any more scripts about how you are from Boston. I don't want to watch any more movies about how Boston is a special and unique town where people have terse, heartfelt relationships in tense situations based around neighborhood characters. No more Boston, alright Affleck. You don't see me making 10 movies in a row where hicks chew tobacco and grow corn. Spare me.
Submittable as in, submitted on IndieTalk? I've got stuff up there now looking dark with not brilliant audio receiving excellent feedback which I can use to improve my skills
Submittable as in film festival submittable worthy. So when I hire a crew, and they ask me what kind of lighting I want and things like that, how do I know what's good? Even though I have been experimenting with lighting and different camera settings, I still don't know what's good and what not.
Last edited:
Ah. That I do not know. lol
But you should totally post something on IndieTalk for the aforementioned reasons! Some people on the forum will know if you're ready to start making festival-worthy shorts. I'm guessing that it'll be easier to tell by checking out your work than by guessing based on the description of your crew/kit.
Last edited:
I actually Affleck as director. Sure he's not a great actor, and has made some bad film choices in the past, but when it comes to his two movies he directed, I think he did a great job, and did not overstylize it, like a lot of thriller directors do nowadays. Yeah they both took place in Boston, but I like the stories in spite of the same location he's from.
When you are dealing with studio productions, the actor / first time director just helps the actors with the acting and blocking the scenes and depends on an experienced crew to handle the rest in auto pilot mode. The DP, camera operator, sound crew knows what they have to do. That's why the production ends up looking good. The DP and camera operator sees what the director wants and they figure out the framing, camera angle, and lighting. And, the sound crew worries about the best possible sound.
An experienced editor usually pieces the footage together too.
An experienced editor usually pieces the footage together too.
Last edited:
Ah. That I do not know. lol
But you should totally post something on IndieTalk for the aforementioned reasons! Some people on the forum will know if you're ready to start making festival-worthy shorts. I'm guessing that it'll be easier to tell by checking out your work than by guessing based on the description of your crew/kit.
Oh yeah for sure I will post my work, once I find out if Final Cut Pro X is worth getting for it. However, the footage I shot and will edit will be very different then when I hire people to do a short a later. I'm forced to use ADR while practicing most of the time, and forced to act in front of a camera without being able to move it. So with that in mind, how can you tell if I'm ready by watching shorts like that, since I will be making one without ADR, and with moving cameras later?
I'm not 100% sure, but I suppose the key thing would be story telling. Can you get a good narrative across to your audience. You can have the best camera-work in the world but if the story is weak or, worse still, incomprehensible, you'll have a lot of trouble getting into festivals.
You probably already know but it's worth mentioning that story-telling isn't just about the screenplay or storyboarding, it's also in the subtle decisions you make in production such as how a character should walk or talk or how he lights a cigarette, not to mention how it's all cut together in the editing room. These are things you can concentrate on without relying on other people with professional gear.
Anyone with the desire can direct. It doesn't mean they'll do it well. But, they can do it.
I've seen quite a few first time films from celebrities and the movies suck.
I don't usually notice these things at all. But, Whip It (Drew Barrymore's directorial debut) the opening when they're showing Ellen Page home and life is all set tripod shots. It isn't till you first see the roller derby that the camera really starts to move. It was pretty neat.
I've seen quite a few first time films from celebrities and the movies suck.
I don't usually notice these things at all. But, Whip It (Drew Barrymore's directorial debut) the opening when they're showing Ellen Page home and life is all set tripod shots. It isn't till you first see the roller derby that the camera really starts to move. It was pretty neat.