Wrapped up a short a few weeks ago: It was a huge learning experience...

[Theauteur14]

A little about about: I am a 22 year old actor/writer/director. Originally from Maryland, I started acting in 2011 when I was able to be a union solider in Lincoln. After that I acted in some indie films, and got to be on an episode of Veep. All the while I trained in theater. I had always been a writer having written several short stories, a screenplay and novel already.

Last year I moved to L.A. I started out still just acting. I was in a short film and in an episode of One Big Happy. But then I decided to try my hand at writing and directing.

I wrote, directed and starred in two short films last year. The first was top motion, the second was a live action melodrama. Both shot on a Nikon D3500. They got into some small festivals.

This brings me to this...

I shot my third short film a few weeks ago. It was shot on a Red Epic, so this was a big deal for me. I'd had some issues during pre production. But everything was all set.

Even when I woke up at 4am the day of to a text of the sound guy bailing, it was all good as a new guy had just signed up for free and my DP had sound equipment as well as lighting equipment.

A few people were thirty minutes late. But it was all good. We shot the first scene gorilla style in front of a church. We got away with it.

The short only had two locations. We get back to the main location. There were five actor, including myself as the star in the short. Two men, three women. The first scene had one of the three and she was done for the day. The other actor was there. But the actresses were no where in sights.

Here is what happened. The lead actress was a trainwreck waiting to happen. She had fallen into so many cliches (drugs, car crashes, getting broke, going to rehab). She lived in San Bernadino county and basically couldn't get down to the shoot. She went to rehab shortly after (she just got out). I saw this one coming a little.

The second actress I didn't see coming. Turns out she had gone to a party the night before (dumb move) and got slipped something.

What ended up happening was the lead actress was replaced by an actress that the DP knew and the rest of the day we shots scenes with just her and I until my crew bailed on me. It worked out though as we got to really work out the hardcore dramatic scenes for the last day.

Regardless the first day was still not bad. But after that...

The actress had an issue with a sex scene that I saw as critical. I was willing to tone it down to a scene that just implies it (making out, etc). And she seemed out with this. But I get a call from the DP with a heads up. He said that she texted him saying that she was not going to do it. I obviously wasn't happy with this. But I had no choice.

And because of the second day I had to pay the crew extra. The A.D/Boom operator was doing it for free so that wasn't an issue. But it caused stress as the crew was bugging me with this and I had no one else to handle this. I had/have no job so the financial stress was alot.

So on to the shoot. These issues helped me in a way as the scenes that I had to shoot got progressively heavier an ever (outside of the first day when we also shot the end of the short we shot everything in chronological order). So taking some of Natalie Portman's advice I used what was going on and put it into my performance. I think it worked.

I had wanted to get this done in six hours. But of course we got it done in ten. We ended up not having enough time to break for lunch as we were losing light. And we would get interruptions here and there.

There were some instances where I had to do some power plays. I felt the DP was rushing things at one point and yelled at him saying that I don't want sloppy work. He then started saying how I wouldn't have an end to the movie because of time, then I said "work quicker". Most people work so slow. This DP and the crew are those types of people. Talented though.

Then I didn't like how the actress was asking the DP a question so I had to explain to her how that was disrespectful.

For the most part I was a good leader and cheer leader. I created a shot list and explained it in a way that the DP could understand. On set I was able to show what I wanted. Same with what I wanted lighting wise. I gave all my performers the tools that they need to create their performances. I didn't micro manage and I was open to collaboration (the DP, had some good ideas that were incorporated). But overall I had a great hand in everything in this production. And I am proud of that.

It was a rough shoot. As for the sex scene, it just got turned into an even more dramatic scene ending with her leading me into the house implying that we will have sex. The film is going to be something a little different than what I wanted it to be at first. But I had to let it be.

I realize now why some directors like to work with different people per movie. On my next directing project (looking at doing a feature) I am getting new people in every area. The DP was 23 and while he was talented, that wasn't ideal. I rather have someone who is more in a mentor position like my second short. He bitched a little too much.

I also want to make sure I get only the most professional actors/actresses. I got some talented people don't get me wrong. The replacement for the lead turned out to be quite good. But I see why a lot of indie movies get movie stars versus unknown. They are so much more professional.

I want to go for the Clint Eastwood style of directing. Outside of a shot where we had to take 12 takes do to some issues, the average number of shots per take was three. Most went three to five. If I can get some people who move quicker that could cut time. Close ups were one to three max. Usually two.

I am developing my feature as we speak. I'm excited to think about another production. The short is currently being edited. I am also co composing the score. I am hoping this one really helps my career in a lot of ways.

 

[Theauteur14]

Sweetie: When it's good and ready.

Sfoster: It's true, there is so much talent in L.A that you have the gift of choice.

You've made 3 shorts, no features and you think you know the answer to any potential question?

Pertaining to the creative vision of my stories yes I can answer any question as any good director should be able to.

You're either going to need to completely redefine the meaning of the word "great" or spend a fortune hiring world class professional cast and crew who are capable of creating "great" and of course be a "great" director yourself to provide them all with the circumstances/opportunity necessary to actually do "great" work.

What you said means nothing to me. I had a great DP with great equipment (Red Epic, several lights, sound equipment), good crew members, trained actors including myself, and I brought it as an actor/writer/director. So yes we did "great work'. I did what any good indie filmmaker does: make the most out of the budget. It's all about the people that you get in the end.

In most cases, no it's not, because there is no demand for films, only for good films. Making a feature film is difficult, making a good feature film with a low budget is more difficult still and making a good film with a micro or nano budget is near impossible.

For most no/nano budget filmmaker it's all about having fun because having fun it what makes it an appealing hobby but a primary focus on fun rather than hard detailed work is extremely unlikely to result in a decent film. So, I agree with your basic premise. The dilemma for the nano budget filmmaker is that the vast majority of those who are willing to work for little pay are either hobbyists or those with limited experience/skill looking to develop. Applying pressure in these circumstances is unlikely to improve the quality of their work or worse, be entirely counter productive. And, even if you are a skilled enough boss/manager to apply pressure in a purely constructive way, that is still only one of the many skills necessary to be a good film director! My main concern though is that you seem to be equating doing fewer (1-3) takes with being more effective. Certainly that will speed up your production but most commonly that will result in you being less, not more effective. This is why I stated that you're in for another huge learning experience in the future.

G

When directing my shorts (especially this last one because of the equipment and costs) I don't just do it for fun. Some people on here may be "trust fund" babies and actually have money to finish college. Not me. I don't have the money or time to do it for fun. I do it for my career. That's the difference between someone who makes a career out of this versus someone who doesn't. If you think long term then you will be fine. But if you are thinking "I've got to make this!" then what's the point?

I am actually pretty laid back. On set I like to tell jokes and share a story or two. But I am very passionate. I take no b.s from anyone. I use a sports mindset. I'd love to act all artsy and stuff. But the sports mindset is the best as it's the most proactive. I push my people the way a good coach pushes their players. I am also very understanding. My second actress didn't make the first day (was supposed to be the only day) of shooting because she got slipped roofies. Most directors would have been done with her. But I allowed her to stay on. My editor just had a family emergency. I understood and didn't pressure him. He thanked me for being so understanding that most directors would have told him to suck it up.

The key is to be tough, but fair. You can be nice. But you can't always be nice. I try to show that I have a big heart. But I am all about the work.

Clint Eastwood has mastered the art of less takes. I don't do a shit ton to begin with (unless something goes wrong I try to do no more than three to five per shot). But honestly some shots don't need as many takes. Some scenes in general don't need as many times. With proper planning less takes can be done and you can still produce a high quality film.

The main reason why I want to do this is that I always feel like I have no time left. With less takes I will have more time.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Pertaining to the creative vision of my stories yes I can answer any question as any good director should be able to.

Being able to answer questions on the creative vision of your stories is not much use on it's own unless you know how to most effectively implement that vision and these types of questions, related to feature film workflows, you will certainly struggle to answer!

Clint Eastwood has mastered the art of less takes.

Clint Eastwood works with highly experienced, world class crew utilizing the best equipment and facilities available and he himself has decades of experience. Clint Eastwood is proof that with those resources it is possible to make good films with very few takes. You however, do not have even one of those resources!

What you said means nothing to me.

That's painfully obvious! Your last post perfectly confirms what I said to start with, that you've got some more huge learning experiences to come. Maybe you'll realise this before it's too late and take steps to mitigate it, maybe you just need to learn the hard way or maybe you'll never learn and never comprehend why you never get very far. The choice is yours. Good luck!

G

 

[Theauteur14]

Being able to answer questions on the creative vision of your stories is not much use on it's own unless you know how to most effectively implement that vision and these types of questions, related to feature film workflows, you will certainly struggle to answer!

Let's just put it this way: I feel pretty good that I got my vision across in the way it was shot, performed, how it's being edited, and certainly composed. I understand what it takes to make a good film. I understand what it takes to get your vision across. That's why I'm not worried about dropping out of film school.

Clint Eastwood works with highly experienced, world class crew utilizing the best equipment and facilities available and he himself has decades of experience. Clint Eastwood is proof that with those resources it is possible to make good films with very few takes. You however, do not have even one of those resources!

First off, you have no idea just how much I understand film.
I have advantages that Clint Eastwood didn't have. For starters I have him as an example to learn from. He didn't start directing at age 22 I am sure. He didn't have all the equipment that I have available to me at that age. The less takes thing will be something that I will be using for my first feature, which will have more money behind it than any of my shorts.

That's painfully obvious! Your last post perfectly confirms what I said to start with, that you've got some more huge learning experiences to come. Maybe you'll realise this before it's too late and take steps to mitigate it, maybe you just need to learn the hard way or maybe you'll never learn and never comprehend why you never get very far. The choice is yours. Good luck!

G

And who are you? Are your films consistently in festivals? Are you earning a living off of this? You aren't saying anything to me that is actually helpful. Your just putting your limiting beliefs onto me and I am rejecting them.

 

[trueindie]

That's why I like working with a new cast and crew each time out.

How can this possibly be some sort of advantage? I don't know of any successful filmmaker who works with a new cast and crew every time. Almost every one of them has some sort of crew "family" that works with them in every film. And some directors even work with the same actors. I'm sure Clint Eastwood also works with the same crew in every film.

While I might want to sympathize with some of your positions on how you want control over your set, because I do on mine, and I might even concede that at some points in the shoot, it might be better to be an a**hole than to have a meeting so everyone can collaborate, your approach seems counterproductive.

Yes we need to get things done faster, but that may not be possible. So as a leader, your job is not to say "work faster," your job is to say "Well while I'd like to have those 4 lights here, we're not going to have time, so don't bother with that light over there. I can live without the highlight in the hair," or whatever. "Work faster?" That's a solution to what? You think the DP doesn't care about his shot? You think he isn't busy setting up his shot while you tell a joke or two? He cares about his shot more than you do. The management challenge is to make the DP live with a poorer shot, with imperfect lighting.

You keep talking about Clint Eastwood. How is his directing style relevant to your circumstances? Yes Eastwood doesn't like to rehearse, but Eastwood is also working with people like Matt Damon who come prepared. Yes Eastwood likes to do less takes, because he comes from the school where they believe that for good actors, the first takes are the most natural, and later takes are over-thought, not because of "time constraint" reasons. Spielberg is similar. He doesn't like to rehearse. But they're working with seriously talented and determined people who can change their body weight on a whim. You and I are working with actors who don't show up to your set. While you can draw inspiration from Clint Eastwood, and I myself am a fan of his, behaving like Clint Eastwood wouldn't be ideal in your situation. Clint Eastwood also doesn't say "Action" or "Cut." Why don't you try that on your set and see how that turns out. I tried that sh*t in my first movie, after I read Eastwood's reasoning and agreed with him. Your crew will start saying "this guy thinks he's clint eastwood," when you're not looking. And they're not going to say it in a friendly way.

And can we see your first two movies while we wait for your third to be "good and ready?" You're making a lot of statements. We can't attach any weight to it without watching a film or two, can we?

And I'm sympathetic to your general position, about where you need to be as a Director on how you manage your set. But I'm not at all sympathetic to your approach, or your style. I can't see myself behaving that way and having a productive shoot day. These people are on your set, because you have a script, that's all. That makes it possible for them to act or shoot or light or record sound or whatever they're interested in. They're not there because they think you're a great director. But their input will be significantly improved if they believe that what you're doing is worth it. "Work faster" sounds immensely counter-productive. Are you talking to slaves or indentured servants, or artists? I have ruined the mood of many a DP. Not because I thought they weren't working fast enough. But the DP wanted to do more. And I told them to do less. They couldn't live with less, because they thought they could make the shot prettier and I forced them to live with less, to compromise because of MY lack of resources. They couldn't get the shot they wanted because the Director didn't have time or resources. Think about how shitty that must make a DP feel who knows in his bones that he can do more, who knows in his bones that he can get the background to look nicer. Now if I told that same DP, after I ruined his mood to "work faster," and if he didn't punch me in the face before he walked out of the set, I'd probably lose all respect for him.

As a Director, you're managing people. You can't just be telling people what to do. In some form or fashion, they have to want to do what you're asking them to. At least they'll have to be able to see what you're doing as close to the right thing, if not the right thing.

And again, can we see your first two movies please?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

First off, you have no idea just how much I understand film.

As you've never made a feature film, I can have a reasonable guess!

Your just putting your limiting beliefs onto me and I am rejecting them.

No, I'm pointing out your limitations and you are rejecting them instead of thinking about how you might mitigate them!

Are your films consistently in festivals? Are you earning a living off of this?

You're joking right? I've been working professionally for over 20 years, my first theatrical feature film screened in competition at Cannes in 1999 and two years before that, my work was a BAFTA Finalist. Who I am is irrelevant though, that I have many years experience and you're hoping to do it for the first time, is! However, you're certain advice from an old pro like me is worthless and that you know exactly what you're doing, so I'm out of this thread. Good Luck.

G

 

[mlesemann]

TheAuteur14: on my 1st feature, we reached the point where we were running later and later every day, and the o/t issues were multiplying. On the last day in the location (to which we could not return), I told the crew what our hard out was (I was producer as well as screenwriter). I told them that they had to get what they could get in that amount of time (which the director & dp had agreed in advance would be sufficient). If it wasn't done in time, we weren't going to get it. The dp was not happy about having to compromise on some shots which weren't as great as he'd like - they were still terrific. But we made the day.

On my 2nd feature, we did indeed mostly use 3 takes, and sometimes as many as . There were few if any cases when we had more than that.

 

[Theauteur14]

How can this possibly be some sort of advantage? I don't know of any successful filmmaker who works with a new cast and crew every time. Almost every one of them has some sort of crew "family" that works with them in every film. And some directors even work with the same actors. I'm sure Clint Eastwood also works with the same crew in every film.

While I might want to sympathize with some of your positions on how you want control over your set, because I do on mine, and I might even concede that at some points in the shoot, it might be better to be an a**hole than to have a meeting so everyone can collaborate, your approach seems counterproductive.

Yes we need to get things done faster, but that may not be possible. So as a leader, your job is not to say "work faster," your job is to say "Well while I'd like to have those 4 lights here, we're not going to have time, so don't bother with that light over there. I can live without the highlight in the hair," or whatever. "Work faster?" That's a solution to what? You think the DP doesn't care about his shot? You think he isn't busy setting up his shot while you tell a joke or two? He cares about his shot more than you do. The management challenge is to make the DP live with a poorer shot, with imperfect lighting.

You keep talking about Clint Eastwood. How is his directing style relevant to your circumstances? Yes Eastwood doesn't like to rehearse, but Eastwood is also working with people like Matt Damon who come prepared. Yes Eastwood likes to do less takes, because he comes from the school where they believe that for good actors, the first takes are the most natural, and later takes are over-thought, not because of "time constraint" reasons. Spielberg is similar. He doesn't like to rehearse. But they're working with seriously talented and determined people who can change their body weight on a whim. You and I are working with actors who don't show up to your set. While you can draw inspiration from Clint Eastwood, and I myself am a fan of his, behaving like Clint Eastwood wouldn't be ideal in your situation. Clint Eastwood also doesn't say "Action" or "Cut." Why don't you try that on your set and see how that turns out. I tried that sh*t in my first movie, after I read Eastwood's reasoning and agreed with him. Your crew will start saying "this guy thinks he's clint eastwood," when you're not looking. And they're not going to say it in a friendly way.

And can we see your first two movies while we wait for your third to be "good and ready?" You're making a lot of statements. We can't attach any weight to it without watching a film or two, can we?

And I'm sympathetic to your general position, about where you need to be as a Director on how you manage your set. But I'm not at all sympathetic to your approach, or your style. I can't see myself behaving that way and having a productive shoot day. These people are on your set, because you have a script, that's all. That makes it possible for them to act or shoot or light or record sound or whatever they're interested in. They're not there because they think you're a great director. But their input will be significantly improved if they believe that what you're doing is worth it. "Work faster" sounds immensely counter-productive. Are you talking to slaves or indentured servants, or artists? I have ruined the mood of many a DP. Not because I thought they weren't working fast enough. But the DP wanted to do more. And I told them to do less. They couldn't live with less, because they thought they could make the shot prettier and I forced them to live with less, to compromise because of MY lack of resources. They couldn't get the shot they wanted because the Director didn't have time or resources. Think about how shitty that must make a DP feel who knows in his bones that he can do more, who knows in his bones that he can get the background to look nicer. Now if I told that same DP, after I ruined his mood to "work faster," and if he didn't punch me in the face before he walked out of the set, I'd probably lose all respect for him.

As a Director, you're managing people. You can't just be telling people what to do. In some form or fashion, they have to want to do what you're asking them to. At least they'll have to be able to see what you're doing as close to the right thing, if not the right thing.

And again, can we see your first two movies please?

A lot of directors don't work with the same actors and actresses. Ben Affleck has worked with a new DP on each of the films that he has directed. Clint Eastwood, David Fincher, and Terry Gilliam very seldom work with the same actors. You know how it's an advantage to work with a new cast and crew each time out?

1. There are so many talented people in the world that can offer you something. Why stay with one DP? Why work with the same actors all the time. My first two shorts I had the same lead actress and the same supporting actor. That was okay. But you can meet new people and expand your horizons when you hire on new people each time out. And since I act in my films as well I try to remain the one constant.

2. The more people you meet, the less you need people. For example my AC/Gaffer and the grip were bugging me about the checks (I wanted to send them in the mail as I didn't want to deal with that on set). I told them that I had replacements and that if they didn't want to come back then that was okay. Sure enough they came back. The only person that I really could not have made this with was the DP because he had all the equipment. So I want to be in a position where I don't need people because I know I can get someone just as good, if not better on board.

3. I am not very clickish. Meaning I don't really make a lot of friends. I like working with new people. It's a new experience each time out. That being said I haven't even made a feature yet. If I met a DP and crew that I really got along with (I didn't find them annoying, they didn't bug me, they were professional, and they didn't talk too much), then I'd try to work with them again. But I haven't had a crew or a DP that I was like "Those are my guys!"

I have only told anyone on set to work faster once. We we're shooting a few close ups for the next to last scene of the day/night. The DP wanted to shoot in a way that I felt compromised the acting in a scene. I turned to him and said no sloppy work. He was like "sloppy work" and I don't really remember what next I said but he said "but you won't have an end to your movie". The previous day of shooting he and the crew bailed on me when we reached the 12 hour mark. It worked out better for the film. But I obviously couldn't have that happen. Combined with that and a snide remark he made about how he wished I was just either directing or acting (he knew what he signed up for so I didn't really care for this remark) So with good body language I aggressively said "work quicker."

I've never yelled at an actor. I raised my voice to others on set maybe twice the whole shoot. I did yell at my neighbors in front of everyone. But hey man, you got to do what you go to do. Everyone knows directors yell. I'm not trying to make it seem like I am mean. But I am all about the work. Hopefully as my career goes on the results show that. If you hire the right cast and crew they will understand. Look at what Kate Winslet said when defending James Cameron's behavior on the Titanic

Kate Winslet: "Yes, it was hard, but no-one ever said it was going to be easy. When all the stories started emerging about how tough it had been and Jim Cameron being mean to everybody and costs over-running, I went, wait a minute, what makes these people think they can speculate about all of this?

"They weren't there. Yes, he lost his temper, but he only ever lost his temper for really, really good reasons," the 36-year-old added.

"Like we would spend days literally setting up a shot, and if someone isn't doing his job and dumps water 10 seconds too late, then we've got to start over. Yeah, I could understand that man getting a little ticked off.


BTW, I like some rehearsal. I do one table read, I met with the lead actress the day before the last day of shooting, and I always run through it right before we shoot. Not a ton. But enough. Like I said, it's all about the people. There are so many great actors and actresses out there. Most come super prepared. Obviously someone like Matt Damon is on another level now. But he was a young actor too no? If you trust people and give them responsibilities it's amazing how much better at their jobs that they become. I agree with Eastwood and Spielberg, the first take can often times be the most natural. But Eastwood has said many times that he hates how most directors take so long to shoot films. Once he was in a movie and the director I guess was doing a shit ton of takes. One shot had seven takes. After that seventh shot the director said to Clint: that's perfect! Let's do this..." Clint said "perfect is the best that I can do" and walked away.

I agree with you that the people are on my set because of my script and story, not because I am some great director. But if you don't believe in yourself and have that confidence then who will? In the end of the day it's what works best for you. No one should ever hang on to hard feelings from a set as it's not productive or work worth it. It's about the director's vision and what he do to make it happen. And I have to say that I had two very productive days. I've never had "fun" as a director though. I'd be fulfilled. But fun? It's like going to war for me. I have to gear up and it takes so much out of me.

First short has been in post hell for months. My second short is complete. But that is pretty much a student short (I didn't have the kind of resources and costars that my third had). How about this? When I post the completed second short on here (probably by the end of the month), I'll post my second short along with that. Kind of like a double feature.

TheAuteur14: on my 1st feature, we reached the point where we were running later and later every day, and the o/t issues were multiplying. On the last day in the location (to which we could not return), I told the crew what our hard out was (I was producer as well as screenwriter). I told them that they had to get what they could get in that amount of time (which the director & dp had agreed in advance would be sufficient). If it wasn't done in time, we weren't going to get it. The dp was not happy about having to compromise on some shots which weren't as great as he'd like - they were still terrific. But we made the day.

On my 2nd feature, we did indeed mostly use 3 takes, and sometimes as many as . There were few if any cases when we had more than that.

This is similar to what happened to me. The DP for someone reason felt that the script needed to be filmed in ten days (I don't have the money or time for that). And we had one, then two days. So he kinda bitched a decent bit (the main reason why I would not work with him again). We got amazing footage, we got just about every type of movement that I wanted, and I gave him freedom to add things in. I'm sure he wanted more. But in the end of the day you have to make it work. That's where creativity comes out of: limitations.

It seems like you have gotten to an efficient way of shooting. I hope when I do my first I can get things done like that. I feel like people take way too long on a film set. At least as a director you are always working. But I've been just an actor on set, and sometimes your life "can we just get going please???"

 

[trueindie]

Hey man, listen. I'm on your side. But I think you're doing yourself a disservice by internalizing too much, the behaviors of the actors and directors you like.

A lot of directors don't work with the same actors and actresses. Ben Affleck has worked with a new DP on each of the films that he has directed. Clint Eastwood, David Fincher, and Terry Gilliam very seldom work with the same actors.

You and I are not Clint Eastwood, or Fincher or Gilliam. They get the pick of the litter, and can work with new people all they want. You and I get to work with the people who are willing to work for free. Our choices are limited. And in that scenario, what I try to do is, if I find someone I work well with, then I work with them again and again. I like a scenario where all my faults as a Director are already accepted by the crew and I don't have to explain myself all the time. It makes things easier to work with the same people at our level.

You know how it's an advantage to work with a new cast and crew each time out?

1. There are so many talented people in the world that can offer you something. Why stay with one DP? Why work with the same actors all the time. My first two shorts I had the same lead actress and the same supporting actor. That was okay. But you can meet new people and expand your horizons when you hire on new people each time out. And since I act in my films as well I try to remain the one constant.

2. The more people you meet, the less you need people. For example my AC/Gaffer and the grip were bugging me about the checks (I wanted to send them in the mail as I didn't want to deal with that on set). I told them that I had replacements and that if they didn't want to come back then that was okay. Sure enough they came back. The only person that I really could not have made this with was the DP because he had all the equipment. So I want to be in a position where I don't need people because I know I can get someone just as good, if not better on board.

Well if you're going to pay people and they're in a stressful financial situation, I suppose you can do whatever you want. I'm not sure it's the right practice in the long run.

3. I am not very clickish. Meaning I don't really make a lot of friends. I like working with new people. It's a new experience each time out. That being said I haven't even made a feature yet. If I met a DP and crew that I really got along with (I didn't find them annoying, they didn't bug me, they were professional, and they didn't talk too much), then I'd try to work with them again. But I haven't had a crew or a DP that I was like "Those are my guys!"

Just think about what you're saying. How do you know that the crew does not find you annoying and that you don't bug them and find you unprofessional, and that you talk too much? I'm sure I'm annoying to a lot of people. A lot of people on this board find me annoying. So what? You can still work with them if they're talented. What the hell is "annoying" anyway? What does that even mean, in the context of a filmmaking enterprise? Who gives a shit? We're making a movie. Who cares if you don't like somebody's hat, or the pitch of their voice. It's not something that should factor into your decision on who to work with.

I have only told anyone on set to work faster once. We we're shooting a few close ups for the next to last scene of the day/night. The DP wanted to shoot in a way that I felt compromised the acting in a scene. I turned to him and said no sloppy work. He was like "sloppy work" and I don't really remember what next I said but he said "but you won't have an end to your movie". The previous day of shooting he and the crew bailed on me when we reached the 12 hour mark. It worked out better for the film. But I obviously couldn't have that happen. Combined with that and a snide remark he made about how he wished I was just either directing or acting (he knew what he signed up for so I didn't really care for this remark) So with good body language I aggressively said "work quicker."

I've never yelled at an actor. I raised my voice to others on set maybe twice the whole shoot. I did yell at my neighbors in front of everyone. But hey man, you got to do what you go to do. Everyone knows directors yell. I'm not trying to make it seem like I am mean. But I am all about the work. Hopefully as my career goes on the results show that. If you hire the right cast and crew they will understand. Look at what Kate Winslet said when defending James Cameron's behavior on the Titanic

Kate Winslet: "Yes, it was hard, but no-one ever said it was going to be easy. When all the stories started emerging about how tough it had been and Jim Cameron being mean to everybody and costs over-running, I went, wait a minute, what makes these people think they can speculate about all of this?

"They weren't there. Yes, he lost his temper, but he only ever lost his temper for really, really good reasons," the 36-year-old added.

"Like we would spend days literally setting up a shot, and if someone isn't doing his job and dumps water 10 seconds too late, then we've got to start over. Yeah, I could understand that man getting a little ticked off.

You shouldn't really take my advice seriously. You should find out for yourself what works for you and what doesn't. If your attitude gets you the performance and the shots you want, by all means, keep doing what you're doing. But I'm still going to say that you and I are not James Cameron, and we don't work with Kate Winslet. I think you can emulate another Director's vision, or a writer's style, if you find that appealing to you, but to emulate their behavior, at our level, where you need a lot of favors, I think is a bad idea.

BTW, I like some rehearsal. I do one table read, I met with the lead actress the day before the last day of shooting, and I always run through it right before we shoot. Not a ton. But enough.

I like a lot of rehearsal. I'd do more of it if I could.

Like I said, it's all about the people. There are so many great actors and actresses out there. Most come super prepared. Obviously someone like Matt Damon is on another level now. But he was a young actor too no? If you trust people and give them responsibilities it's amazing how much better at their jobs that they become. I agree with Eastwood and Spielberg, the first take can often times be the most natural. But Eastwood has said many times that he hates how most directors take so long to shoot films. Once he was in a movie and the director I guess was doing a shit ton of takes. One shot had seven takes. After that seventh shot the director said to Clint: that's perfect! Let's do this..." Clint said "perfect is the best that I can do" and walked away.

Again, you and I are not Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood can say that to a Director. It doesn't mean that Matt Damon can say that to Clint Eastwood the Director. Everybody's situation is different.

I agree with you that the people are on my set because of my script and story, not because I am some great director. But if you don't believe in yourself and have that confidence then who will? In the end of the day it's what works best for you. No one should ever hang on to hard feelings from a set as it's not productive or work worth it. It's about the director's vision and what he do to make it happen. And I have to say that I had two very productive days. I've never had "fun" as a director though. I'd be fulfilled. But fun? It's like going to war for me. I have to gear up and it takes so much out of me.

That's fascinating. When I'm directing, or planning my movie, or working with actors, it's the absolute greatest moment of my life. It doesn't matter what the stress of the moment is, I'm thriving. I want to live in that stressful moment for eternity. Directing is the greatest joy I've ever felt as a work experience. Sure it's war, but I've got an army on my side. Not everyone is fully with me, but so what? I get most of them on my side eventually.

First short has been in post hell for months. My second short is complete. But that is pretty much a student short (I didn't have the kind of resources and costars that my third had). How about this? When I post the completed second short on here (probably by the end of the month), I'll post my second short along with that. Kind of like a double feature.

I look forward to it.

This is similar to what happened to me. The DP for someone reason felt that the script needed to be filmed in ten days (I don't have the money or time for that). And we had one, then two days. So he kinda bitched a decent bit (the main reason why I would not work with him again). We got amazing footage, we got just about every type of movement that I wanted, and I gave him freedom to add things in. I'm sure he wanted more. But in the end of the day you have to make it work. That's where creativity comes out of: limitations.

I'm not sure I follow this logic. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but limitation as a mother of creativity? I don't think so. So in order to make Spielberg more creative, we should limit him??? A creative person will find a way to work around limitations, but without limitations, a creative person is surely capable of much more.


Best of luck to you. I look forward to watching your films.
Cheers,
Aveek

 

[Sweetie]

Sweetie: When it's good and ready.

What about the previous 2? Are they ready to share?

You have a style and methods that I personally find counter-intuitive, though one thing that I do agree with you, everyone has their own style and attracts particular people. What works for you may not work for me.

I'm far more interested in your final outcome.

 

[Theauteur14]

Hey man, listen. I'm on your side. But I think you're doing yourself a disservice by internalizing too much, the behaviors of the actors and directors you like.

Huh? Where did I ever say that I do that?

You and I are not Clint Eastwood, or Fincher or Gilliam. They get the pick of the litter, and can work with new people all they want. You and I get to work with the people who are willing to work for free. Our choices are limited. And in that scenario, what I try to do is, if I find someone I work well with, then I work with them again and again. I like a scenario where all my faults as a Director are already accepted by the crew and I don't have to explain myself all the time. It makes things easier to work with the same people at our level.

On my last project almost every position was paid. I never said that I was at their level (yet). As for working with the same people over and over again, I think it's fun to mix it up. I like to go for different types of films each time out, you learn new things from different people, and kinda expand your social network that way. I do agree though when you work with the same people you don't have to explain yourself all the time and that is nice.

Well if you're going to pay people and they're in a stressful financial situation, I suppose you can do whatever you want. I'm not sure it's the right practice in the long run.



Just think about what you're saying. How do you know that the crew does not find you annoying and that you don't bug them and find you unprofessional, and that you talk too much? I'm sure I'm annoying to a lot of people. A lot of people on this board find me annoying. So what? You can still work with them if they're talented. What the hell is "annoying" anyway? What does that even mean, in the context of a filmmaking enterprise? Who gives a shit? We're making a movie. Who cares if you don't like somebody's hat, or the pitch of their voice. It's not something that should factor into your decision on who to work with.

If people do say that about me it doesn't matter as that is not for me to hear. The less things that bug you on a film set the easier it is for you. But true at the end of the day if your talented that's all the matters. I think my DP is kinda weird. But he was talented as fuck and had all the right equipment so I had to hire him.

You shouldn't really take my advice seriously. You should find out for yourself what works for you and what doesn't. If your attitude gets you the performance and the shots you want, by all means, keep doing what you're doing. But I'm still going to say that you and I are not James Cameron, and we don't work with Kate Winslet. I think you can emulate another Director's vision, or a writer's style, if you find that appealing to you, but to emulate their behavior, at our level, where you need a lot of favors, I think is a bad idea.

My point of that was to put emphasis on the fact that I am not James Cameron, my short was not the Titanic, and not only was I not as harsh as him, I bet my performers understood the few times that I got upset because it was warranted. In the end of the day when I am on set as a director I am just myself. I don't think "what would James Cameron do". If there are people who I may try to act like they would be in sports (Tony Stewart, Kevin Harvick, Chad Kanus, Tom Brady). Especially Tony since he co owns the race team that he races for. All these guys are hard on their team. But they have/do produce results that win championships.

I like a lot of rehearsal. I'd do more of it if I could.



Again, you and I are not Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood can say that to a Director. It doesn't mean that Matt Damon can say that to Clint Eastwood the Director. Everybody's situation is different.

I have always liked that quote because it shows how annoying multiple takes can be. I agree Clint may be one of the few that could do that.

That's fascinating. When I'm directing, or planning my movie, or working with actors, it's the absolute greatest moment of my life. It doesn't matter what the stress of the moment is, I'm thriving. I want to live in that stressful moment for eternity. Directing is the greatest joy I've ever felt as a work experience. Sure it's war, but I've got an army on my side. Not everyone is fully with me, but so what? I get most of them on my side eventually.

I think it depends on a lot of things.

How much money do you have? Everything that I have directed has been very low budget. In fact this last one was the first thing I've directed that cost a decent amount. That adds into the stress.

Do you make comedies or dramas? I think when you do a comedy everything is just inherently lighter. With drama the mood of the set gets different during a long day.

You know what's fun? Playing the guitar, or racing a go kart. That's when I have fun. Acting is also pretty fun too if you are just acting. I enjoy post production a little more than being on set actually since I am composing this one. Even editing is kinda fun. Directing? I love directing. It's challenging, it's a beast, it's stressful, it's fulfilling. I love authorship. And I have yet to direct something with a big budget or a feature and weird shit has always happened so maybe my tune will change. But I consider directing more of a labor of love.

I look forward to it.



I'm not sure I follow this logic. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but limitation as a mother of creativity? I don't think so. So in order to make Spielberg more creative, we should limit him??? A creative person will find a way to work around limitations, but without limitations, a creative person is surely capable of much more.


Best of luck to you. I look forward to watching your films.
Cheers,
Aveek

Of course creativity comes out of limitations. Jack White is famous for playing live on stage with shitty guitars. Guitars that you would find in Sears? Why? He says it's because creativity is found in limitations. He uses those shitty guitars as a box and works his way out of them and creates something beautiful. Other artists have touched upon this.

You will always have limitations. No one is limitless. It's up to us to work within those limitations. And often times you can create something cool.

What about the previous 2? Are they ready to share?

You have a style and methods that I personally find counter-intuitive, though one thing that I do agree with you, everyone has their own style and attracts particular people. What works for you may not work for me.

I'm far more interested in your final outcome.

Some of you are acting like I act like a dick on set. I'm a pretty nice guy. Laid back. I like a good time. On a set where you have to work 10 to 12 hours you have to keep the troops up. Sometimes it's with humor. Other times you have to motivate your people. In the end of the day it all goes back to passion and wanting to create the best art that you can. I prefer to approach this with a sports mentality.

Patience is a virtue. I will say that I just saw the first rough edit and I am loving what I have so far. I tested it out and I have gotten good responses so far. I'm excited for you all to see the final product.

 

[Sweetie]

Some of you are acting like I act like a dick on set. I'm a pretty nice guy. Laid back. I like a good time. On a set where you have to work 10 to 12 hours you have to keep the troops up. Sometimes it's with humor. Other times you have to motivate your people. In the end of the day it all goes back to passion and wanting to create the best art that you can. I prefer to approach this with a sports mentality.

I think you're digging too far into my comment.

It's your insistence of building a new team for each project and "morale building techniques" (which may have been exaggerated) seem counter-intuitive to me. I'd imagine sport teams would have a hard time succeeding after being replaced after each and every game. What would I know right?

Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate humor and a competitive working environment. I also appreciate people respond different to different stimuli. What works for you, may not work for me. No need to take offense. Take Steve Jobs reputation. He got results - He also got fired. To me his style is also counter-intuitive. Volatile.

Patience is a virtue. I will say that I just saw the first rough edit and I am loving what I have so far. I tested it out and I have gotten good responses so far. I'm excited for you all to see the final product.

Patience is a virtue I lack. I'm looking forward to seeing your final result and wish you the best of luck.

 

[Theauteur14]

I think you're digging too far into my comment.

It's your insistence of building a new team for each project and "morale building techniques" (which may have been exaggerated) seem counter-intuitive to me. I'd imagine sport teams would have a hard time succeeding after being replaced after each and every game. What would I know right?

Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate humor and a competitive working environment. I also appreciate people respond different to different stimuli. What works for you, may not work for me. No need to take offense. Take Steve Jobs reputation. He got results - He also got fired. To me his style is also counter-intuitive. Volatile.

Most sports teams nowadays make wholesale changes all the time. Not just bad ones either, good teams. In NASCAR Joe Gibbs racing swapped around three crew chiefs between three drivers. The only teams that don't do stuff like that are the ones that year in and year out there are no major issue. While if I did find a DP and crew that so I felt super comfortable around I might take them in other projects, (I like my editor and composer, I could see myself working with them on my feature). But people lose chemistry. Relationships run their course. You have to be able to adapt. One of the cool thing about film is that everyone has a story to tell, including the DP and co. New people bring a new perspective. I think my best chance to be a success in tie industry is to have variety in my work.

Steve Jobs did get fired. But, when Apple was in despair who did they beg to comeback? He is basically responsible for picking up the best movie studio out there when George Lucas screwed up. Hell I think he owned the most shares of anyone at Disney and was in the board of directors.

I think as long as people believe that you are talented and that they gain from working with you then it's all good. I do believe that my last cast and crew would work with me again.

 

[sfoster]

Auteur I suggest you watch the 2003 documentary "Overnight"

 

[Theauteur14]

LOL I am not like that guy at all. I am very into collaboration, I used ideas from my DPs and performers. Anyone is free to say anything that they want. The DP was very blunt too. There is zero room for ego when you make a film IMO. Acting really teaches you that.

This is the way I see it:

I am in the driver seat as the actor/writer/director. The DP is my crew chief, the AC is his car chief, the rest of the cast are my teammates as they have goals as actors and actresses to achieve. A driver and crew chief aren't always going to have peachy keen communication. But as long as they can communicate in a way job gets done with quality and effectiveness that is all that matters. During a day of shooting there will be ups and downs. But as long as it's all about the work and everyone is on the same page that's all that matters.

I think the way to make your mark in this industry is to try different ways of working. Sports teams are amazing, efficient and effective.

 

[Sweetie]

Most sports teams nowadays make wholesale changes all the time. Not just bad ones either, good teams. In NASCAR Joe Gibbs racing swapped around three crew chiefs between three drivers. The only teams that don't do stuff like that are the ones that year in and year out there are no major issue. While if I did find a DP and crew that so I felt super comfortable around I might take them in other projects, (I like my editor and composer, I could see myself working with them on my feature). But people lose chemistry. Relationships run their course. You have to be able to adapt. One of the cool thing about film is that everyone has a story to tell, including the DP and co. New people bring a new perspective. I think my best chance to be a success in tie industry is to have variety in my work.

Your position is a little more clear (at least to me) than it was before. My understanding was that you wanted a completely new team for every production.

As for your best chance for success, there are many paths to success. It very well could be yours.

Steve Jobs did get fired. But, when Apple was in despair who did they beg to comeback? He is basically responsible for picking up the best movie studio out there when George Lucas screwed up. Hell I think he owned the most shares of anyone at Disney and was in the board of directors.

My memory on some of these details is a little different from yours, but that's fine. From my understanding, Jobs return was based on Apple's need to find an operating system and Jobs leveraged that need for his return. As for picking up a studio, Pixar was far from a studio at the time Jobs picked it up. Before the success of Toy Story, it almost broke him. He did end up uber rich, so it's hard to argue with his results in the end.

 

[trueindie]

I think it depends on a lot of things.

How much money do you have? Everything that I have directed has been very low budget. In fact this last one was the first thing I've directed that cost a decent amount. That adds into the stress.

Not much.

I have never paid anybody for any short film I've done. But I've made sure there was a lot of food, and coffee around. I've made two features, and for that I paid people.

Of course creativity comes out of limitations. Jack White is famous for playing live on stage with shitty guitars. Guitars that you would find in Sears? Why? He says it's because creativity is found in limitations. He uses those shitty guitars as a box and works his way out of them and creates something beautiful. Other artists have touched upon this.

You will always have limitations. No one is limitless. It's up to us to work within those limitations. And often times you can create something cool.

Yeah, let's limit Eastwood to a $100,000 for his next film and let's see how creative he gets.
And let's give Jack White a two string guitar and ask him to play like Jimmy Page. Let's see how creative he gets.

 

[sfoster]

LOL I am not like that guy at all.

When you said "I think as long as people believe that you are talented and that they gain from working with you then it's all good." this is something that could have came out of that dudes mouth verbatim .

 

[Theauteur14]

Your position is a little more clear (at least to me) than it was before. My understanding was that you wanted a completely new team for every production.

As for your best chance for success, there are many paths to success. It very well could be yours.

If you are talking about on set crew then I would actually like to work with a new one each time out if possible (a new DP for sure). And I do like mixing up editors and composers. The way I see it is 1) I am 22 about to turn 23, I don't need to get a crew and be like "this my my crew forever!" I will probably meet a better DP and a better crew that fits me the best. 2) I go for variety with my films. That is the main goal for my features. Having a new crew each time out will aid that. And like I said I 'm just not that clickish.

My memory on some of these details is a little different from yours, but that's fine. From my understanding, Jobs return was based on Apple's need to find an operating system and Jobs leveraged that need for his return. As for picking up a studio, Pixar was far from a studio at the time Jobs picked it up. Before the success of Toy Story, it almost broke him. He did end up uber rich, so it's hard to argue with his results in the end.

Yeah, in the end of the day Steve got his way until his death.

Not much.

I have never paid anybody for any short film I've done. But I've made sure there was a lot of food, and coffee around. I've made two features, and for that I paid people.

. I didn't pay the going rates. But I'd enough to where I could be homeless next month.

Yeah, let's limit Eastwood to a $100,000 for his next film and let's see how creative he gets.
And let's give Jack White a two string guitar and ask him to play like Jimmy Page. Let's see how creative he gets.

Eastwood would still make a badass film and Jack White would do something creative.

When you said "I think as long as people believe that you are talented and that they gain from working with you then it's all good." this is something that could have came out of that dudes mouth verbatim .

Then he was right with that. You can say that about almost any director.

 

[sfoster]

Then he was right with that.

yeah.. once again I recommend you watch that movie. see how well that attitude worked out for him.