Using a very small cast?

Semiazas

Semiazas

Hey all.
For a short film I'm gonna do for school (it'll probably be no longer than 20 minutes tops) that needs to be Hitchcok influenced because of the work I'm basing it around (essay on Hitchcock's influence) I'll probably be using a very small cast probably like 4 or so people, at least one female, possibly 2 if I can find enough people, although the cast will probably be predominantly male.
I'm wondering if people have advice for working with small casts.
And, if it's not too much trouble, any good Hitchcock style plots that can be done with a very small cast.

Many thanks,
Sam
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on other threads, I get the impression this is your 1st short? If so, I strongly recommend starting much shorter than 20 minutes -- that's quite a hefty project. If I misread, then nevermind, of course.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on other threads, I get the impression this is your 1st short? If so, I strongly recommend starting much shorter than 20 minutes -- that's quite a hefty project. If I misread, then nevermind, of course.
Click to expand...

This is my first short, yes. I gather 20 minutes may be quite an undertaking for a first, especially when I'll be directing, writing (with the help of a friend), composing and doing all the cinematography.
I don't want it to be too short though so as everything seems rushed.
What length would you reccomend for a first short that's Hitchcock in style (the Hitchcock part is the key part as I think I mentioned in my first post in the topic)?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I recommend your first short be no longer than 1-minute. Your second short, no longer than 5-minutes. Then, stick around the 5-minute-range for a few more shorts. With every new short, you work on learning and practicing just one or two particular skills. Then, you look back and figure out what you did that worked, and what you'll never do again. Trying to learn everything at once is a recipe for disaster, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that any first-time filmmaker can make something 20-minutes long that won't bore the audience to death.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I recommend your first short be no longer than 1-minute. Your second short, no longer than 5-minutes. Then, stick around the 5-minute-range for a few more shorts. With every new short, you work on learning and practicing just one or two particular skills. Then, you look back and figure out what you did that worked, and what you'll never do again. Trying to learn everything at once is a recipe for disaster, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that any first-time filmmaker can make something 20-minutes long that won't bore the audience to death.
Click to expand...

One minute?
I should probably get some others done before this Hitchcock one then since I wouldn't be able to do it in one minute. The thing is, I want enough time so that the plot can be established and it doesn't all seem ridiculously rushed and things like that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You should keep in mind that I don't represent any kind of authority. For what it's worth, I've taken exactly two filmmaking courses, from two different professors. Each one of them required that our first short be under 1-minute, and they both put a number of restrictions on what we were allowed to do. Looking back, I understand why they did that, and I think it's a wise way to start.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
You should keep in mind that I don't represent any kind of authority.
Click to expand...

I thought you were Deputy Chief Inspector of the filmmaking police?

If this is really your first film ever, 20 minutes is a bit ambitious. I'd say restrict yourself to five minutes tops if you've never done anything before. A three or four minute project that doesn't work is a learning experience, a twenty minute one that doesn't work is as much a learning experience as it is a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
I thought you were Deputy Chief Inspector of the filmmaking police?

If this is really your first film ever, 20 minutes is a bit ambitious. I'd say restrict yourself to five minutes tops if you've never done anything before. A three or four minute project that doesn't work is a learning experience, a twenty minute one that doesn't work is as much a learning experience as it is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I've been demoted to traffic duty. At least until everything is cleared up with Internal Affairs.

Semiazas, I think chilipie makes a good point in calling it a waste of time to do something so long. Your earliest projects should be all about learning and practicing. The more rapidly you're able to have your work critiqued, and for you to analyze what worked and what didn't, the faster you'll be able to progress to more advanced filmmaking techniques. Doing nothing but shorts allows this fast turnaround.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i agree, start small. my first short was supposed to be longer. in the end it was 6mins and half the story had to be scrapped. even now i have an 11 page script and just not the time or funds or equipment to do it just now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think 20 minutes is too long for a first short. My first short was 45 minutes long.

Something to keep in mind while you write: make sure your characters are DOING something in every scene. Don't have them sit around talking about the plot or trying to move the story along with talking.

Make sure they are doing. Something. Even if it is peeling potatoes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I recommend your first short be no longer than 1-minute. Your second short, no longer than 5-minutes. Then, stick around the 5-minute-range for a few more shorts. With every new short, you work on learning and practicing just one or two particular skills. Then, you look back and figure out what you did that worked, and what you'll never do again. Trying to learn everything at once is a recipe for disaster, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that any first-time filmmaker can make something 20-minutes long that won't bore the audience to death.
Click to expand...

I would have said no more than five minutes. That certainly seemed to be the prevailing standard from the film students at SCAD. Although some of them went for run times as high as ten. Those were the guys I noticed had the most frustration for taking on a surprisingly (because ten minutes doesn't seem like THAT much in your head) ambitious running time for a first shot at filmmaking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would say between 5-10 minutes for a Hitchcock based short. 1 minute is too short for a project based on the work of a director like Hitchcock (although I agree that you should practice with shorter films first).

Someone in another thread used 'Rope' as an example, and this isn't a bad idea, especially with a small cast and limited time/resources. Other than that I would try and include the archetypal Hitch reference: your very own Grace Kelly, a crazy McGuffin and suspense with a capital S.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Uranium City said:
I don't think 20 minutes is too long for a first short. My first short was 45 minutes long.

Something to keep in mind while you write: make sure your characters are DOING something in every scene. Don't have them sit around talking about the plot or trying to move the story along with talking.

Make sure they are doing. Something. Even if it is peeling potatoes.
Click to expand...

would u recommend that everyone start with a 45 min short though? is there somewhere to watch it, i'd like to see it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
would u recommend that everyone start with a 45 min short though? is there somewhere to watch it, i'd like to see it.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't recommend anything to anyone, other than to do what you feel is most comfortable. For me, the first story I wanted to tell on film ended up being 45 minutes long. It wasn't any shorter or any longer. It just was. As such, it was more of a challenge than a five minute or 15 minute film, but I was up for it. If the OP is up for the challenge of a 20 minute short, then he should make a 20 minute short!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What if this were a forum for construction and engineering? What if the OP felt like he was up to the task of building a 20-story building, even though he'd never built anything in his life? Wouldn't it be smarter to start with something more reasonable, like a one-story, one-room shack. What's the point of building a 20-story building, if it's built on shaky foundation, and will crumble apart at the slightest gust of wind?

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving someone advice on how you feel they will become a better filmmaker. What's the point of making a 20-minute movie, if it's very likely going to be barely watchable. Better to learn how to build a foundation first. I think you can learn a whole lot more, by making 4 5-minute movies.

Of course the OP should do what he wants. But sometimes it's wise to take the advice of those who've done it before you, and I think if you were to take a straw-vote, most filmmakers who are at least at an intermediate level would advise against something as long as 20-minutes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
what i do for my latest short. i had an idea for an opening , a middle and an end. i treated them as 3 separate entities. i wanted to learn and work out these scenes separately, that is what was most important to me. whether people 'get' it or not is irrelevant to me at this point. it's about me learning specific things and types of scenes. so that when i go bigger i have the relevant knowledge for what i plan to do.

jumping into a 20-45 minute film is something i would advise against but it's up to u, do whatever u want to do. if u have a cast willing to do it and the time and equipment then go for it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Have you fully revisited the script to make sure it can't be tightened up some? Obviously I'm asking that without knowing anything about it, but you may find ways to pace things, economize. Are you better off with one shot where you thought you wanted 3?

Having a small cast is going to be to your advantage, but as a first film the duration is a major undertaking. No one has asked, so I am going to - what's your background, in a general sense? Is this the first film of your own and you have experience crewing on other's projects, or is this your first time ever doing anything similar? Do you have a background that includes some form of project management experience? Also, how organized are you and in what way? No, honestly. For example, I am an organized person in the way that a technician is, but I am not one in the way that a producer is/has to be. It's a brain lock thing or something. Going into a longer work as a first project is going to require the latter. Something to consider that I don't think had been mentioned. Those are all mostly rhetorical questions, but there to help you decide if you're "Go Big or Go Home" or if you "take it day by day, just one step atta time.."

Not that you shouldn't jump right in to whatever it is you want to do, but there may be ways to make it easier. Logistically how are you planning to shoot? If, for example, you choose to do a couple days here and there, then you can refine as you go. Take weekend and shoot a scene or two, or the opening, or the easiest scene, or the hardest scene, or all the exterior coverage, etc. Figure out what works and what doesn't, then tackle the next weekend and so on.

Or were you planning to just run straight through the shooting days? I wouldn't recommend that if you have never done any film/video production. Nothing worse than day 5 of a 5 day incredibly disorganized newbie shoot that could have been done in 3. Don't take that wrong, not talking about anyone in particular, it's just an example.

Actually there are worse things than that, like day 4 in that scenario, cause you know you still have to come back tomorrow. :no: /vent :D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with giving someone advice on how you feel they will become a better filmmaker. What's the point of making a 20-minute movie, if it's very likely going to be barely watchable. Better to learn how to build a foundation first. I think you can learn a whole lot more, by making 4 5-minute movies.

Of course the OP should do what he wants. But sometimes it's wise to take the advice of those who've done it before you, and I think if you were to take a straw-vote, most filmmakers who are at least at an intermediate level would advise against something as long as 20-minutes.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with advice. Nothing wrong with not taking advice.

A straw-vote? What would the prove? I think you’re right, Cracker,
if we took a pole I believe that more filmmakers would suggest
making a shorter film. So what? I remember a discussion here about
shooting a feature quickly using mostly available light. It seemed
that most filmmaker suggested taking more time and using more
lights. The filmmaker had their method set and did exactly what
they wanted to do. A straw-vote would not have changed that
filmmakers mind.

Your advice is good advice. I side with those who say that going
for a 20 minute (or longer) first film is just fine. In fact, I’d
say it’s an excellent idea. If in a straw-vote I was outnumbered
10 to 1, so what? Should a beginning filmmaker make movies based
on a vote of other filmmakers? I know you don’t feel that way, so
I don’t understand your point here.

Back in July a filmmaker right here on the indietalk forums said,
“But filmmaking is personal. Everyone shouldn't do everything the
same. You do things your way, I'll do things my way, and the world
will be a better place for it.” Excellent words from a filmmaker
making their first feature and getting advice from experienced fellow
filmmakers against doing it their way.

You feel a shorter film is best. Some of feel a longer one is a
perfectly reasonable first film. A straw-vote won't make one
piece of advice better than the other.

I think you can learn a lot by making a 20 minute movie. And it
might even be really good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top