Which movie shall one make first?

[iellioz632]

A new independent filmmaker has written about 8 feature film scripts. As is the case most of the time, one out of the eight screenplays is the strongest or best script - maybe the 'Godfather' of the 8 scripts. The remaining seven scripts are regular films, but not as great or strong as the single one script.

Now for the independent filmmaker who wants to make his/her first movie, which would you think would be the best advice or best choice - - make the strongest movie or choose one from the remaining seven regular scripts and make that one?

There is a bit of a dilemma or confusion here because on one side of the fence, the mind is saying break into the film world with a great movie, and on the other side of the fence the mind is saying, use a normal film as your first film so you can learn the techniques and learn from mistakes etc. The part of the mind that is saying to make the strongest film first is kind of winning the race and really wants this but there seems to be a fear that this first film can be a failure or not so well received due to production technique etc. and that a regular normal first film should have been used instead.

Are there any resources or articles that you can point me to which surrounds this same topic? I am sure this question may have been asked before but google etc. did not help me to find any.

Your thoughts?

 

[WalterB]

Good point. I did that research because you asked the other poster to do some homework and I did not see any results so I decided to go on my own and do some research and you were right! I found 21!

Although this may seem distracting from the topic it is not, because it is about making decisions based on information.
Let's take a look at the list:

Benh Zeitlin: won Oscar in 2012, was into filmmaking since 2004, made at least 1 short: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benh_Zeitlin

Tony Gilroy: wrote 9 movies, produced 1. Earned his credits in Hollywood before directing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Gilroy

Bennet Miller: made a documentary that opened doors for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Miller

Rob Marshall: came from theatre, directed several TV film before his first feature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Marshall

Sam Mendez: directed plays since 1990 (including on Broadway) and got to direct American Beauty after 20 others turned the job down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mendes

Spike Jonze: made videos since 1889, his first music video in 1992, his firts short in 1997, made a total of 38 musicvideos (including pretty inonic one like Beasite Boys' Sabotage, Cannonball by The Breeders, Buddy Holly by Weezer) and 2 shorts before directing Being John Malkovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Jonze

John Singleton appears to be the most recent example of a first time director without prior experience to win an Oscar. This is pretty exceptional. However, he was on the right place in the right time and not deemed without talent since it was 1990 when he enrolled in (and I quote University of Southern California's Filmic Writing program under Margaret Mehring and her now-famous curriculum. The program was designed to take students directly into the Hollywood system as proficient writer/directors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Singleton

Kevin Costner: before winning with Dancing With Wolves he had been acting for years, since 1987 considered to be an A-list actor. So he was no stranger in Hollywood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Costner

Jim Sheridan: before directing his first feature he was writing and directing for theater for years.
http://www.tribute.ca/people/jim-sheridan/6949/

Kenneth Brangh: was interested in theater and film since his youth, studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Branagh

Roland Joffé started as trainee director for TV in 1973. A decade before his Oscar winning debute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Joffé

James L Brooks worked in LA for TV since 1965, in 1979 he worked on the film Starting Over which he wrote and co-produced with Alan J. Pakula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Brooks

Hugh Hudson started as editor in the '60s and progressed to prodcing and directing commercials, made his first short in 1967 , made a documentary in the 70s, before winning an Oscar with his first feature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hudson

Robert Redford: acting since the 1950s. In 1969 he was executive producer for the first time.
Although he had around 3 decades to look at how it all works, it looks like Ordinary People was truely his first effort as director:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Redford

Warren Beatty: acting on TV since 1957, started producing in the 60s, won an Oscar in 1975 for his screenplay for Shampoo, before getting nominated for an Oscar in 1978 for his first feature as director https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Beatty

Buck Henry acted and wrote many years for TV and film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Henry

Mike Nichols acted in the 50s, directed stage plays since 1963 and due to his popularity he got invited by Warner Bros to direct Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nichols

Jack Clayton followed the 'start at the bottom' career path, working his way up since 1935 up till 1959 when his first feature got nominated for 6 Oscars (but had to compete with Ben Hur... some movies take it all) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Clayton

Sidney Lumet appeared in a feature at the age of 15.
In 1946 he started an acting group: he was directing.
He also taught acting at the High School of Performing Arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Lumet

Delbert Mann was a TV director.
His winning first feature was an adaptation from a TV show with the same name, which he also directed 2 years earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delbert_Mann

Orson Welles performed and staged theatrical experiments and productions since fourth grade.
Made his 'real' stage debut in 1931.
Made name with Ceasar on Broadway, War of the Worlds on Radio before offered the freedom to make Citizen Kane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Welles


So, to round up the homework:

Except for John Singleton, who really, more or less came out of the blue (although he was in a program designed to enable that) all these directors had experience as director or where no stranger in Hollywood film business.
(With Robert Redford as the cool out of the blue director after decades of acting.)
Jack Clayton is clearly the classic example of working yourself up step by step.

Nevertheless: it doesn't make their accomplishments smaller or less special.

One can argue that this goes beyond the point of this topic, but ignoring what these director did before and therefor pretending these 21 examples can be compared with a first time director who hasn't even shot a 'sleeping cat' is a bit silly. Apples and bananas. (The color and shape are different )
(BTW, the cat video question was more or less a joke, although it is a possibility to discover the fun of filming by filming your cat with your phone...)

A stranger to Hollywood (hence no funding from Hollywood) with no experience in filmmaking at all (hence no funding from whatever grants) and no money from other sources is very unlikely to get nominated for an Academy Award.

That's why I and others here suggest to get that experience.

 

[iellioz632]

WalterB, that is some detailed homework. Thanks and much respect for that! Yes, experience is important at the end of the day to a great extent.

 

[Sweetie]

I merely wanted to get some points of the three classes of films' faults as to why the commenter made this comment.

You can make a film with no faults and it can still suck. You can make a film with lots of faults and it can still be great. I'd suggest to not think about faults.

Per my experience, see the below:

Made short films before? - no
Musicvideos? - no
Cat videos? - no
Homevideos of birthday parties? - no

Yes, experience is important at the end of the day to a great extent.

One pearl of wisdom. You can do this with very little experience, or in fact, no experience. They say there are two entry level positions in film. The PA and the Director. The less talented and experienced the director, the more A) experienced and talented every other HOD needs to be and B) the more authority they need and c). The less authority the director can have.

 

[PrevisLab]

 

[PrevisLab]

Here u go for everyone see first 3min https://youtu.be/vXGUEjYCybA

 

[WalterB]

Here u go for everyone see first 3min https://youtu.be/vXGUEjYCybA

Actually, I don't disagree with that.
My point is that all those directors weren't people without experience, without money and without connections.

While iellioz632 has no experience, little money and changes are big very few connections.
And besides that: explaining what you want is also easier with some experience.
I've seen a first time director antagonize the cast because of the way he 'explained' his vision.

Money is the easiest anwser to most questions on IT, but not the anwser most people here can apply.

1) Money can 'buy' (or hire) experience.
2) Connections can give you money.
3) Experience can give you connections.

1 is absolutely true. (Although it's never a guarantee for great movies, it surely helps)
2 and 3 can easily be distilled from the 21-list.

 

[PrevisLab]

 

[WalterB]

Research first time directors that were accomplished key people in the film industry and started directing and failing as a director making some of the worst movies.

...........

Shit happens.
But accomplished people who fail is not proving that unexperienced people succeed.
It just shows even with the money to hire experienced people a first time director can fail because of poor choices, a lack of vision, talent and/or experience.
(And it undelines that having the connections can land you the job: where people trust you can create a Return On Investment.)

 

[PrevisLab]

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Have you ever made a feature film?

Yes, quite a few.

When you have a moment to spare, can you elaborate on your above comment? I would appreciate your input if you can fill in the numbers with the faults you have seen filmmakers make when making a feature ...

Mmmm, that would take far more than "a moment" because using "numbers" as you have is rather meaningless. And of course, it also depends on what you mean by "faults", are we talking about technical faults, weaknesses of judgement or both? We need to be talking about both if discussing differences between poor, good and great films. Which brings us to the actual role of the director and this statement:

"as a director you just need to hire the right people to capture that greatness your job is to just communicate your vision."

While literally true, this statement is a hugely oversimplified sound-bite. It lacks the crucial details which make the difference between a good director and a poor one or, between a great film and a poor one. For example, to "communicate your vision", you obviously have to have a vision in the first place and also obviously, to stand much of a chance of actually making a great film, the vision has to be great too.

Let's look at this a different way, let's say that we hire good, experienced: Screenwriter, DOP, Actors, Pic Editor, AD, Sound Designer and Composer, etc., but the film had no director, what would happen? The DOP would try to tell the whole story with cinematography, the actor would looking at the acting performance as being the most important element, the composer would try to tell the whole story through music, etc. Good or great filmmaking is not a single art, or rather, if we define it as a single art then it's the art of using and combining a bunch of diverse arts. In this director-less example, we would most likely end up with a mess, a bunch of diverse arts which would effectively be competing with each other to tell the story rather than complimenting each other. Exactly how and when these arts combine and in what order, at every point in the film, is defined by the Director's "Vision" and of course, by his/her ability to communicate it!

In addition to the art/s of filmmaking, there are also the logistical and legal aspects. Either of which can (and, especially at the lower budget levels, commonly do!!) partially or completely negate whatever quality of the art/arts which the film does contain. And last but not necessarily least, is the element of luck. As the budget increases and the level of experience and skill of EVERYONE involved increases so the reliance on luck decreases but some small degree of luck is still required to make a great film, even with an entire filmmaking team of top pros.

So the list of 21 holds.

Personally, I'm more in agreement with WalterB on this one but even if we accept the list of 21 unconditionally, what does this actually mean realistically? How many first time directors have there been in the last 70 or 80 years, a million, two million, more? 21 out of a million is not good odds, even worst odds if we accept WalterB's argument that virtually all of those 21 had significant relevant experience which lessened their odds. How much relevant experience do you have and how much budget and therefore, how much must you rely on luck to beat those odds? Is hoping for/expecting that amount of luck in any way realistic, are we talking about lottery winning levels of luck here?

Many storytellers have said in interviews that as a first time director most important people you will hire is Writer, script supervisor, dp, ad, talent, editor.

To be honest, I'd disagree. As far as a first-time director needing and relying on others' knowledge and experience is concerned, far and away the most important person in the list would be the producer.

Going back to your request of me; a list of 15 "faults" is nowhere near enough for even one of the film arts, let alone all of them, let alone the numerous combinations of all of them! It would take considerable time to come up with the over simplifications necessary to get down to just 15 points and even then, it would be a largely useless list because it would be so over simplified!

G

 

[PrevisLab]

 

[PrevisLab]

 

[PrevisLab]

https://youtu.be/boQQRYMjLTc

 

[iellioz632]

Yes, quite a few.



Mmmm, that would take far more than "a moment" because using "numbers" as you have is rather meaningless. And of course, it also depends on what you mean by "faults", are we talking about technical faults, weaknesses of judgement or both? We need to be talking about both if discussing differences between poor, good and great films. Which brings us to the actual role of the director and this statement:



While literally true, this statement is a hugely oversimplified sound-bite. It lacks the crucial details which make the difference between a good director and a poor one or, between a great film and a poor one. For example, to "communicate your vision", you obviously have to have a vision in the first place and also obviously, to stand much of a chance of actually making a great film, the vision has to be great too.

Let's look at this a different way, let's say that we hire good, experienced: Screenwriter, DOP, Actors, Pic Editor, AD, Sound Designer and Composer, etc., but the film had no director, what would happen? The DOP would try to tell the whole story with cinematography, the actor would looking at the acting performance as being the most important element, the composer would try to tell the whole story through music, etc. Good or great filmmaking is not a single art, or rather, if we define it as a single art then it's the art of using and combining a bunch of diverse arts. In this director-less example, we would most likely end up with a mess, a bunch of diverse arts which would effectively be competing with each other to tell the story rather than complimenting each other. Exactly how and when these arts combine and in what order, at every point in the film, is defined by the Director's "Vision" and of course, by his/her ability to communicate it!

In addition to the art/s of filmmaking, there are also the logistical and legal aspects. Either of which can (and, especially at the lower budget levels, commonly do!!) partially or completely negate whatever quality of the art/arts which the film does contain. And last but not necessarily least, is the element of luck. As the budget increases and the level of experience and skill of EVERYONE involved increases so the reliance on luck decreases but some small degree of luck is still required to make a great film, even with an entire filmmaking team of top pros.



Personally, I'm more in agreement with WalterB on this one but even if we accept the list of 21 unconditionally, what does this actually mean realistically? How many first time directors have there been in the last 70 or 80 years, a million, two million, more? 21 out of a million is not good odds, even worst odds if we accept WalterB's argument that virtually all of those 21 had significant relevant experience which lessened their odds. How much relevant experience do you have and how much budget and therefore, how much must you rely on luck to beat those odds? Is hoping for/expecting that amount of luck in any way realistic, are we talking about lottery winning levels of luck here?



To be honest, I'd disagree. As far as a first-time director needing and relying on others' knowledge and experience is concerned, far and away the most important person in the list would be the producer.

Going back to your request of me; a list of 15 "faults" is nowhere near enough for even one of the film arts, let alone all of them, let alone the numerous combinations of all of them! It would take considerable time to come up with the over simplifications necessary to get down to just 15 points and even then, it would be a largely useless list because it would be so over simplified!

G

I have read your reply.

Per the list of faults, I was more interested in the upper level generic faults for the 3 classes of films. They need not be simplified.

Nevertheless, you need not provide them if you deem it not possible to do so...

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Per the list of faults, I was more interested in the upper level generic faults for the 3 classes of films. They need not be simplified.

Ahh, you are thinking in terms of a linear relationship between faults and their consequences. By this I mean that you seem to be thinking that the most major (or "upper level generic") faults, those faults which with a little knowledge/experience are most easily avoided, are the faults which are most damaging to a film. This is only true to a very limited extent, the relationship is not entirely linear. Many minor faults (low level specific rather than upper level generic) can cause very disproportionate consequences, even to the point of killing a film entirely. In other words, just avoiding all the upper level generic faults does not by itself guarantee finishing a film which is even potentially distributable, let alone ending up with a good or great film!

There's no easy way to explain all this, you really need to experience it for yourself, which is why gaining even some basic experience by doing a few simple shorts would be such a useful start.

G

 

[iellioz632]

Ahh, you are thinking in terms of a linear relationship between faults and their consequences. By this I mean that you seem to be thinking that the most major (or "upper level generic") faults, those faults which with a little knowledge/experience are most easily avoided, are the faults which are most damaging to a film. This is only true to a very limited extent, the relationship is not entirely linear. Many minor faults (low level specific rather than upper level generic) can cause very disproportionate consequences, even to the point of killing a film entirely. In other words, just avoiding all the upper level generic faults does not by itself guarantee finishing a film which is even potentially distributable, let alone ending up with a good or great film!

There's no easy way to explain all this, you really need to experience it for yourself, which is why gaining even some basic experience by doing a few simple shorts would be such a useful start.

G

Thanks for this further post, which is appreciated. I understand that the grand nature of a film can have many aspects which could be at fault, which I am sure is difficult to state in a list due to the detailed length. I guess if one were to write a list of possible faults, some items which can go into the list may be:

- poor color correction (maybe very bad contract settings etc)
- jump cuts (I note jump cuts have been known to be used as a technique in certain situations however)

I am sure the list has many, many more and I agree, the best way to experience them and learning to make a good movie is through experience making movies - ideally through shorts and features.

 

[WalterB]

Jump cuts are often caused by another error, like a lack of coverage or shooting at a different pace than it turns out to be edited.
But it can also be used intentional.

Bad color correction can have several causes:
- the colorist did a bad job
- the director made a bad decision or communicated poorly with the colorist
- the footage was exposed poorly, which can be caused by
-- the absense of tools to expose correctly
-- sloppy work from the camera operator
-- bad choices from the director
-- wrong call from the DP
-- poor camera choice in preproduction
-- poor lighting
-- poor communication about the desired look
-- relying too much on 'we can fix it in post'
-- too much time pressure (this is just an excuse, but it can be caused by:
--- while shooting a documentary events suddenly happened
--- bad planning in preproduction
--- not enough crew to setup in timely fashion
(This list is not complete)

What you see as 1 fault, can be caused by a lot of different things.

If I were to give you advice:
- play around with your camera to learn to expose properly
- don't believe you can fix everything with software, especially when you just started as a filmmaker: it might takes months to fix a shot of a few seconds, while getting it right on set could maybe cost you 20 minutes extra.
- try to plan your shots: make storyboards to see/image whether your story 'works'. There are several tools for this, I'm sure Previs can tell you a lot about this. I usually draw my storyboards on paper. It helps me to understand which shots I need and thus: how many camerapositions there will be and which shots need to be shot from the same position.

We can't tell you which mistaked you must not make, because for everything you do in life, there a few ways that are the right way and a million ways to do them wrong. And besides that: what is considered wrong in one situation, is considered right in another situation. The rules of filmmaking are not cast in stone: it always depends on the situation, the story and what you want to achieve.
Everything depends on everything: this sounds more overwheming and complicating than it actually is.
To get a feel for it, I again suggest to make some short stuff.
Don't expect it to be brilliant: I bet the first time you actually walked also looked funny.
But it will give you insights by experience, which make more impact than just reading about it.

 

[iellioz632]

WalterB, many thanks for this. I am sure and I hope one day I will look back on the wealth of advice and words of wisdom from folks like yourself, AudioPostExpert and PreVis etc. and say to myself, "you know what, now I understand all along what they were telling me".

Appreciated all!

 

[iellioz632]

 

[Sweetie]

I am sure the list has many, many more and I agree, the best way to experience them and learning to make a good movie is through experience making movies - ideally through shorts and features.

There are two basic ways to learn filmmaking:

1). Learning through your own experience and mistakes.
2). Learning through others experience and mistakes.

As you call them, "mistakes" there's lots of them and I suspect most of the mistakes you're thinking about are far from fatal. They're the technical mistakes and most of them can be fixed by professionals given sufficient resources.

The more fatal mistakes are the mistakes that are harder to quantify. They're often creative, business or leadership based. Wrong director, wrong producer, wrong DOP, wrong editor, wrong cast, and the plethora of other wrong people, wrong tempo, wrong pacing, wrong feeling, wrong music, not marketable, not high concept enough for the market, wrong story for target market, not understanding target market, wrong budget, production value too low for target market, too unoriginal, too different... and the list goes on and on and on.

If you're making a film and hope it will be successful, technical competence isn't a goal, it's expected. How else are you going to focus on the important creative and leadership decisions if all you're worrying about is the boneheaded technical stuff - which should already be second nature.

As a director you're going to make hundreds of decisions a day. The most important skill you can learn is to make good, quick decisions. To make good decisions, you need a strong foundation. You need experience.