When I said operate the camera, I didn't mean be the DP, Ridley Scott used to operate the camera initially on his features because he'd done so on commercials. Doing DP as well as directing means having an excellent gaffer (head electrician) to work with you, which has been done by a few directors, but it's a big workload and you may compromise both jobs on a tight schedule.

However, you do need to be comfortable with these roles, otherwise it won't work.

Mel Gibson would've had the option of watching a recording of the video assist from the film camera. Orson Welles, apart from getting a sense of the scene while acting, probably also got feedback from the camera operator and DP. Today, with digital cameras, you got playback, so it's a lot easier.

Since you don't have a storyboard artist, you should do this. Depending on your skill set, you can either use pencil and paper to draw it or use a suitable program. They're allowed to be pretty rough if drawing them yourself (some feature directors aren't great at drawing), although, with one storyboard artist I know you could tell the focal length of the lens from the drawings..

Okay thanks, I'll try to be my own boss and do what I want then. What's the difference between a story board list and a shot list? The way I do it so far is I draw in a book of storyboard boxes and each box is a shot, so it's both the storyboard list and the shot list, but is there a better way to do it?

As for playing back the takes after, I would like to do that but find myself crunched for time, so usually I didn't have time to play them back, and had to rely on the DP/camera operator.

Well the way I work is that the storyboard tells the story, but the shot list is used to avoid resets - so repeated shots with similar our identical placement can be identified and it lets you set shooting order, so you do the 13,49, 52 and 57 shots in that sequence, then you go back to 12,19 and 23. The story boards do a different job. If the paperwork says Shot 57: Interior of submarine torpedo room, it sets the broad brush, but the story board shows the camera is central looking down the centre line, tube doors at the end, with the cast gathered around them. "Interior of torpedo room" gives no clues as to angles and content, but in a lost is easy to find.

For years, people viewed the rushes in the screening room, but only when the director called a print. With video, and a sensible scene length - if I had time to watch what I'd shot, I'd do it. When I work cameras, it's far too easy to mark a take as a good one, when you actually know it could have been better - the director rarely looks at what the camera people consider is the best. If they get to the end, and spot no technical issues, they'll pay no attention to the actors expressions, or stray movements of extras. If you can watch it, you can do it again.

In the days of film, without video assist, good camera operators would've noticed timing errors etc and informed the director, especially if it affected the shot. The focus puller would say if they're not happy, while the director sat or stood close to the camera watching the performances.

The shot list is used for scheduling purposes, 1st ADs like having these, so they can plan the day's work.

What's the difference between a story board list and a shot list?

Once again, see the entire presentation at Storyboards and Shot Lists (https://www.slideshare.net/newestprod/storyboards-and-shot-lists).

Oh okay, thanks. Sorry I missed that. Well I can try to make my own decisions and be more comfortable with them then. Perhaps if I am forced to boom again, could I have the assistant director judge the acting through the camera?

The assistant director has no responsibility for the acting, they are the producers representative on the set, They are there to ensure that things happen and keep you on schedule, so don't get confused by "director" in the job title. It's not a creative role as such (although good ones will offer ideas), they also organize background action to your instructions.

As director, it's your responsibly to ensure that you can see the performances and offer advice to the actors as required.

It's easier to find a boom op than a director. You MUST be the captain of the ship, or find somebody who can be. After all the effort, why are you considering surrendering the project? All the things you ask and want to be in control of, yet you want to give it up and run a microphone (which you've already said you're pretty terrible at).

I've just been watching yet another re-run of Thunderbirds are Go - the movie version of the Gerry Anderson series I grew up with, and know very well. On my big TV, it's clearly very wide with black masking top and bottom, and knowing the original TV series in 4:3 so well, the only benefit is a few vista shots where things approach the camera, or Thunderbird 2 takes off from a side view. Artistically there's no real benefit to the story, or the look, although there are some wide OTS shots where the camera does a move past the blurred person in the foreground that they didn't do in the TV series. There are also lots more low level shots, where the perspective is forced. Easy to see how the director and DoP took advantage of the new format, but it really doesn't move the story on, or create any kind of mood - it just allows the viewer to see more!

It's easier to find a boom op than a director. You MUST be the captain of the ship, or find somebody who can be. After all the effort, why are you considering surrendering the project? All the things you ask and want to be in control of, yet you want to give it up and run a microphone (which you've already said you're pretty terrible at).

Okay sure, how do other directors though judge performances, when they take on other duties though, such as some who act in their own movies? Or is it easier to judge the others' performances when you acting?

As for finding a boom op, I've had a lot trouble finding a good one. Most of them do not aim the mic very accurately in my experience so far, which is why I like to do it myself as someone else does the mixing preferably, since I am less experienced with the mixing, compared to boom operating, which I've done before.

What if I also co-directed this feature film with someone? That way, I concentrate on the directing duties with the technical aspects, such as how I want the movie, to look, sound, storyboards blocking, etc, where as the director directs the performances and is more experienced in that. Does that sound like a good idea?

You can co-direct, although it tends to be someone with creative or acting experience working with someone who knows how to put a film together. One example is Noel Coward getting David Lean (then a film editor) on "In Which We Serve". Another is "Performance" with the writer Donald Commell co directing with the film's DP Nicolas Roeg. however, the film had problems and needed a re-edit before release because it apparently didn't make sense.

The Coen brothers co direct, but it's a different type of relationship.

Directors judge performances by watching the actors, which is why you can't boom swing and direct,you're too busy judging microphone distance etc. On feature films, a new boom swinger tends to be someone who works as sound recordist on other types of production (but want to move over to features) or have worked as a trainee in that department and moved up. It's a matter of the sound mixer insisting on their boom swinger correctly positions the microphone, within a couple of hours they should catch on (assuming they done some swinging before), although perhaps not getting right it every time (even experienced ones can dip into shot).

When acting, directors generally have the experience (from the stage and/or screen) to know when performances are working, but they'll look at the video assist recording in film or playback on a digital camera or, in the past, quietly discuss with the DP and camera operator.(or some member of their personal team).

Given the power dynamics on a set, a head of department also directing would work better, rather than a junior crew member.

There are many books on the subject of directing and working with actors, so if you're serious you should read them.

There was the book Directing Actors by Judith Weston, which I was thinking of getting if it's any good, if anyone knows?


Well working under a few different directors, they just kind of tell the actors what they want and the actors do it and that's it. Similar what I do. They don't seem to be doing anything differently, so I can't put my finger on what I can be doing better.
Here is a the film I directed that I posted before. How is the acting in it? Is there anything I could do better to direct the actors:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

“I tell the actors what I want and they do it” opens up a huge can of worms in terms of what EXACTLY you tell the actors and how they were trained (or not) impacts how they interpret your instructions.

Ive read Westons book. Yes its good; aimed precisely at people who think its as simple as “I tell them I want and they do it”. There are many nuances in extracting better performances from them than you would by saying “lets do it again but do it angrier”, etc. It will blow your mind.

I really think you should try to get on a real, budgeted/funded film set as a PA or intern. That would also blow your mind. From everything Ive read here unfortunately, no, current/past experience does not. Really seeing the flow of a real set and all the departments work would be an eye opener. Even a three or four week feature shoot.

Again, everything Ive read here and in all the other threads tells me you more or less need that or something equivalent to grow and progress. I think youre trapped in a low budget/amateur filmmaking bubble and you need to see how its “really done” to grow.

Oh okay thanks. I've been on three feature film set shoots so far, aside from the short films I've been on.

Two of the features had really small skeleton crews, and one had a really large crew. I was also on a web series shoot that had a pretty large crew as well. Is there anything I am missing when it comes to these though? I wouldn't say my mind was blown exactly, so therefore, am I missing something?

Perhaps not then. It just seems that some of the stuff being said by others in these threads is coming as news to you, like what an AD is or why it’s impractical for the director to also be the boom op, etc. etc. This is all really basic stuff so I thought perhaps you had not been exposed to a “real” production environment.

Oh well, I know it's normally not the AD's job to do that, I was just trying to solve my own problems and get creative, and think outside the box, by perhaps having the AD watch through the screen, if am forced to be a boom op. So even though it's not conventional, I feel that I have to go outside the box to solve problems.

But I was watching the making of Braveheart on the DVD, and Mel Gibson said that he had his own person to watch and judge his performance I can't remember if it was an AD specifically, but I thought if he had someone to judge actor performances, maybe I could...

Do you want to direct a feature or not?

Actors may do it in a way that may not have the right subtext, or they see the character differently or they bring all sorts of personal baggage with them. These may be solved during the casting process, but they may respond differently during the shoot than the auditions. There may be discussions or rehearsals with the actors where the crew isn't around. It's not unusual to clear the set, so that the director can work alone with the actors.

Mel Gibson will have someone who he knows and trusts, they'll be part of his own personal team (stars tend to have a number of these people with them) paid for by the production, not the 1st AD, who may have other things to do on a big production.

The simplest thing to do is select someone with a good attitude and train them to be a boom operator before you go into production.

I'd really love to stand next to a director who told a famous name actor "what to do". This shows a total misunderstanding of the Director's role. They need precise mechanical direction - where to go, when, what to pick up, put down, where to look, and they need delicate prodding to make sure their character is what the director needs. Are they angry? Why? Who at? For what purpose? Will it increase or subside? Where are the limits? What do the feel? In your clip, the acting is average, but the director should have made sure the female was believable. When she starts the "who cares" bit about fine wine, real people don't talk like that. The fault is the script which speaks in a kind of strange version of conversational English, and the actress who is over the top - making sure her diction is correct, enunciating each clump of words, and doing 100% mouth movements instead of realm ones. She's also OTT in her volume, and some of her inflections go up instead of down. The kind of acting you would see in an amateur play, not a movie. She sounds like she is acting, which means she wasn't. In the next clip she holds out her hand and it isn't taken. The Director should have had her drop her hand in embarrassment, which happens in real life. Nobody holds out a hand, and then keeps it there. "proprietory ..........process ..... folders" the long gaps were awkward, why didn't the director re-shoot with out the gaps, they're dramatically awkward and unreal.

In one bit there's a continuity error - Have I made myself clear - cut. Then a reframe and not spot the actress changes her hand positions.

The three actors - the boss type, he's OK, the wine company owner is a little undirected, and I suspect much of what he does just happened because of his reading of the character, but the girl is poor in her acting ability, stunted, doesn't read the meaning of the words, speaks unlike a real person and is totally unbelievable I'm afraid. Three years at acting college might work, who knows. However, good direction would have worked on her. Softening phrases, stopping the wrong emphasis on strange words in a sentence.

However - much is made worse by the technical issues. Wobblycam is a killer for concentration, odd angles, strange camera positions, crash edits. A nice amateur film project but uncontrolled in its production. A strong effective director would have cured some, and lots of work on the look and feel.

The terrible perspective changes in the audio make it tricky to listen to, but you forget the audio problems after a while.

I've been production manager when many famous, and often awkward people are being directed - I also do quite a few where we get the new breed of celebrity to be directed, and many have never had a days training in acting in their lives. A well known face and undiscovered brain. The good directors really get them, and can get the best out of them and stop them looking an idiot - unless looking like an idiot is key to their character, when the good director can also expose their weaknesses and make them look worse and only they don't spot it. They really get the subtle signs of insecurity actors have. They make a living trying to be somebody else, but sometimes the directors do not explain to them who the character is. The girl in the movie clip for instance. Is she really investigative in nature? Is she really nosey? She doesn't;t seem too 'get' her character. Think back to the original Lois Lane in Superman. She was driven, she was awkward socially, she had few scruples, but came across as 'nice' somehow. All the reporter traits expanded. Her character wasn't realistic, but hyper charged and everyone believed it. So she wasn't real at all, but it works for the story.

I think Ryan's clip shows a bunch of keen people trying to make a movie, following all the cliches they have seen used, but not really understood. Every department put in a slightly below par performance and nobody stopped it. The camera, the sound, the acting, the locations - all slightly compromised and the person that should have spotted it and sorted it is the director. Called a halt and said this shot looks wrong - can we make it better. Can we sort out the terrible sound. Can we make the sets look brighter/cleaner/darker. Can we make the script sound like real people.

One thing could have been the glue - the director and s/he seemed to have not noticed anything.

During shooting, did the director actually call cut on any acting sequences apart from ones where they forgot lines, or were in the wrong places. Were there any examples of calming down, perking up etc?

It may be worth doing an acting technique course at a local college, that may assist you in understanding how actors go about their business.

I'd really love to stand next to a director who told a famous name actor "what to do". This shows a total misunderstanding of the Director's role. They need precise mechanical direction - where to go, when, what to pick up, put down, where to look, and they need delicate prodding to make sure their character is what the director needs. Are they angry? Why? Who at? For what purpose? Will it increase or subside? Where are the limits? What do the feel? In your clip, the acting is average, but the director should have made sure the female was believable. When she starts the "who cares" bit about fine wine, real people don't talk like that. The fault is the script which speaks in a kind of strange version of conversational English, and the actress who is over the top - making sure her diction is correct, enunciating each clump of words, and doing 100% mouth movements instead of realm ones. She's also OTT in her volume, and some of her inflections go up instead of down. The kind of acting you would see in an amateur play, not a movie. She sounds like she is acting, which means she wasn't. In the next clip she holds out her hand and it isn't taken. The Director should have had her drop her hand in embarrassment, which happens in real life. Nobody holds out a hand, and then keeps it there. "proprietory ..........process ..... folders" the long gaps were awkward, why didn't the director re-shoot with out the gaps, they're dramatically awkward and unreal.

In one bit there's a continuity error - Have I made myself clear - cut. Then a reframe and not spot the actress changes her hand positions.

The three actors - the boss type, he's OK, the wine company owner is a little undirected, and I suspect much of what he does just happened because of his reading of the character, but the girl is poor in her acting ability, stunted, doesn't read the meaning of the words, speaks unlike a real person and is totally unbelievable I'm afraid. Three years at acting college might work, who knows. However, good direction would have worked on her. Softening phrases, stopping the wrong emphasis on strange words in a sentence.

However - much is made worse by the technical issues. Wobblycam is a killer for concentration, odd angles, strange camera positions, crash edits. A nice amateur film project but uncontrolled in its production. A strong effective director would have cured some, and lots of work on the look and feel.

The terrible perspective changes in the audio make it tricky to listen to, but you forget the audio problems after a while.

I've been production manager when many famous, and often awkward people are being directed - I also do quite a few where we get the new breed of celebrity to be directed, and many have never had a days training in acting in their lives. A well known face and undiscovered brain. The good directors really get them, and can get the best out of them and stop them looking an idiot - unless looking like an idiot is key to their character, when the good director can also expose their weaknesses and make them look worse and only they don't spot it. They really get the subtle signs of insecurity actors have. They make a living trying to be somebody else, but sometimes the directors do not explain to them who the character is. The girl in the movie clip for instance. Is she really investigative in nature? Is she really nosey? She doesn't;t seem too 'get' her character. Think back to the original Lois Lane in Superman. She was driven, she was awkward socially, she had few scruples, but came across as 'nice' somehow. All the reporter traits expanded. Her character wasn't realistic, but hyper charged and everyone believed it. So she wasn't real at all, but it works for the story.

I think Ryan's clip shows a bunch of keen people trying to make a movie, following all the cliches they have seen used, but not really understood. Every department put in a slightly below par performance and nobody stopped it. The camera, the sound, the acting, the locations - all slightly compromised and the person that should have spotted it and sorted it is the director. Called a halt and said this shot looks wrong - can we make it better. Can we sort out the terrible sound. Can we make the sets look brighter/cleaner/darker. Can we make the script sound like real people.

One thing could have been the glue - the director and s/he seemed to have not noticed anything.

During shooting, did the director actually call cut on any acting sequences apart from ones where they forgot lines, or were in the wrong places. Were there any examples of calming down, perking up etc?

Okay thanks. I tried explaining to the actress, some of the problems with the inflection in the voice, but she kept speaking the same way throughout and I was unable to correct that. Is there anything I can do specifically to correct that?

As for crash edits, when is an example of a crash edit, just so I know. :)

One thing is, is that one of the actors become unavailable before the shoot, so I had to drop the character, which lead to a total rewrite of the script during shooting, so the actors had to memorize all new lines that day. But I was told that it's normal to have to undergo rewrites during shooting and it happens a lot in movies. So what can I do to make it better, for the actors?

As for taking acting courses at a college, I took a few but before, but they were geared more towards theater acting, which is a different style than film acting of course. So I feel I could use more film acting input for sure.

The mental processes are the same for film and stage acting, just how you project them is different. If you're working with stage actors at least you'll know where they're coming from. Also, you do need to spend more time tuning their performances, so you have to be in a position to watch them. You may require a few takes to get things right.

Dropping a character can completely change the dynamics of a film (especially with a small cast) casting another actor would male more sense or postpone the filming until the actor is available again.

The auditions would reveal to you if an actor is unable to take direction, it's one of the things that should be checked for during the casting process..

I think acting schools would be smiling. The processes of stage vs screen acting use exactly the same skills. The differences are in how they are used. Characterisation, voice, posture, facial expression and the acting core are exactly the same. An actor can act. Look at the big names, they may be movie or TV based and swap happily into theatre, or they could be Royal Shakespearian actors and become captain of a spaceship. Some people even have a totally different natural accent to their on screen one - it's called acting for a reason. They learn different techniques for theatre vs the others because the viewer is in a perpetual long shot wide angle vista. Film actors can convey with an eye twitch or glance so much, but they're taught all this. They do radio too don't forget.

Re: the crash edits - just watch it. There's no point me telling you the timecode of the non-sequential stuff because you need to learn to spot them. They are mainly edits where the flow is broken - maybe a cut at just the wrong moment, or one that makes you go 'what happened'. Leaning against a wall in one shot - being away in another, that kind of thing.

here's one though. "You found something, what's it going to cost me". He is on her right, stick in hand. It cuts to her facing 180 degrees around and now he is on her left. That's not crossing the line, the actors have actually moved and it goes BANG in my brain. Then it swaps back? Over and over again - every edit shots out. Did she then exit through a wall? Certainly not the entrance?

she leaves and we see her in a car. Then we saw the red soft top which didn't register at first was not her, second time, I saw the roof of the suv, and realised the red car was not her. the driver too small to identify. Who is it? No idea? The red car pulls in and just at the end I think it could be the fella who warned her? Probably, but not definitely.she walks up and suddenly we see an open space? I thought he parked at his home - looks like a suburban street? I've gone into teacher/essay mode, sorry. In the field with the two guys, what is the messy pile of junk on the right? What is it's importance? He says he thought he was being followed - we saw him drive out and her pull out to follow, just once, then he parked. just down the road? Miles away? what made him think she was following? No interior of him glancing in the mirror, or her trying to hide - we saw none of that? His secret raging process done in the open air, next to a busy road? Really? One bottle at a time? He can time travel and choses to age bottles of wine, one at a time, requiring a car journey?

There's another continuity error in the Is this a time machine section. He has the stick in his left hand, with the end visible at the bottom, the stick going up. Then in the next shot, he's probably let it slip down to the dangling position while out of frame, then it moves again. Very small slips but they jump out. He wasn't coached on the stick actions, so probably didn't even realise they were not continuous.

It's not bad Ryan - but the script is mangled in places, the locations simply odd, and the story so full of holes it's like Dutch cheese. However, so much was really fixable. You need to think hard about shooting two handers - continuity is really important, but messing up a head pointing direction was a big one. We also only got to see one view of the filing room - the second shot had a blank wall? So many shots had no need for camera movement apart from pan and tilt, so why hand hold them? Nothing in it made me even think about the aspect ratio. There were no vistas, or amazing locations. 16:9 would have been fine. The various over the shoulder shots were not that brilliant - especially the one where you didn't get all the reverse head in like in the office 34 secs in - did you even need her in the shot at all? A detailed shot of his face would have worked probably even better.

The killer for me is the time machine inventor telling her not to look in that particular filing cabinet as that one is the secret one. That stretches imagination just a little too far.

The story could have worked well, but the script was mangled to death, and I just don't think real people speak like that. You threw away the ending. Let's try a bottle of that time wine while we still can - you get her get out of frame, when the perfect ending would have been for her to say that to his face, and to finish on his silent response as it sinks in.The end edit is at a perfect cutting point to see him stand in the next clip - a kind of comma, for what comes next, when we wanted a full stop (period), exclamation mark final bump.

Don't take it to heart - but this is the kind of thing that people do on a media/film studies course in their first year. By year two and three, they don't make these mistakes any longer.

For what it is worth, I'm afraid I would not work with these actors again. After watching the thing two or three times, there are so many basic acting mistakes. actors make mistakes with lines, especially with re-writes, but you have to repeat it until they sink in before moving on. I got the impression these were probably take 4 or 5 and they were getting fed up, and you put up with the passes and odd bits because you could't face saying "and one more time".

One of my old jobs was floor manager for TV, and in your earpieces you'd have the director screaming "For F**ks sake, can't they get it right - do it again", and you'd translate this to "nearly there, if we could just have one more please, positions everyone'

That reminds me of Richard Attenborough telling the AD how the thousands of extras at Gandhi's funeral should be feeling in full gushing luvvie terms, this got converted by the AD into "Gandhi's dead and you're sad".

I think acting schools would be smiling. The processes of stage vs screen acting use exactly the same skills. The differences are in how they are used. Characterisation, voice, posture, facial expression and the acting core are exactly the same. An actor can act. Look at the big names, they may be movie or TV based and swap happily into theatre, or they could be Royal Shakespearian actors and become captain of a spaceship. Some people even have a totally different natural accent to their on screen one - it's called acting for a reason. They learn different techniques for theatre vs the others because the viewer is in a perpetual long shot wide angle vista. Film actors can convey with an eye twitch or glance so much, but they're taught all this. They do radio too don't forget.

Re: the crash edits - just watch it. There's no point me telling you the timecode of the non-sequential stuff because you need to learn to spot them. They are mainly edits where the flow is broken - maybe a cut at just the wrong moment, or one that makes you go 'what happened'. Leaning against a wall in one shot - being away in another, that kind of thing.

here's one though. "You found something, what's it going to cost me". He is on her right, stick in hand. It cuts to her facing 180 degrees around and now he is on her left. That's not crossing the line, the actors have actually moved and it goes BANG in my brain. Then it swaps back? Over and over again - every edit shots out. Did she then exit through a wall? Certainly not the entrance?

she leaves and we see her in a car. Then we saw the red soft top which didn't register at first was not her, second time, I saw the roof of the suv, and realised the red car was not her. the driver too small to identify. Who is it? No idea? The red car pulls in and just at the end I think it could be the fella who warned her? Probably, but not definitely.she walks up and suddenly we see an open space? I thought he parked at his home - looks like a suburban street? I've gone into teacher/essay mode, sorry. In the field with the two guys, what is the messy pile of junk on the right? What is it's importance? He says he thought he was being followed - we saw him drive out and her pull out to follow, just once, then he parked. just down the road? Miles away? what made him think she was following? No interior of him glancing in the mirror, or her trying to hide - we saw none of that? His secret raging process done in the open air, next to a busy road? Really? One bottle at a time? He can time travel and choses to age bottles of wine, one at a time, requiring a car journey?

There's another continuity error in the Is this a time machine section. He has the stick in his left hand, with the end visible at the bottom, the stick going up. Then in the next shot, he's probably let it slip down to the dangling position while out of frame, then it moves again. Very small slips but they jump out. He wasn't coached on the stick actions, so probably didn't even realise they were not continuous.

It's not bad Ryan - but the script is mangled in places, the locations simply odd, and the story so full of holes it's like Dutch cheese. However, so much was really fixable. You need to think hard about shooting two handers - continuity is really important, but messing up a head pointing direction was a big one. We also only got to see one view of the filing room - the second shot had a blank wall? So many shots had no need for camera movement apart from pan and tilt, so why hand hold them? Nothing in it made me even think about the aspect ratio. There were no vistas, or amazing locations. 16:9 would have been fine. The various over the shoulder shots were not that brilliant - especially the one where you didn't get all the reverse head in like in the office 34 secs in - did you even need her in the shot at all? A detailed shot of his face would have worked probably even better.

The killer for me is the time machine inventor telling her not to look in that particular filing cabinet as that one is the secret one. That stretches imagination just a little too far.

The story could have worked well, but the script was mangled to death, and I just don't think real people speak like that. You threw away the ending. Let's try a bottle of that time wine while we still can - you get her get out of frame, when the perfect ending would have been for her to say that to his face, and to finish on his silent response as it sinks in.The end edit is at a perfect cutting point to see him stand in the next clip - a kind of comma, for what comes next, when we wanted a full stop (period), exclamation mark final bump.

Don't take it to heart - but this is the kind of thing that people do on a media/film studies course in their first year. By year two and three, they don't make these mistakes any longer.

For what it is worth, I'm afraid I would not work with these actors again. After watching the thing two or three times, there are so many basic acting mistakes. actors make mistakes with lines, especially with re-writes, but you have to repeat it until they sink in before moving on. I got the impression these were probably take 4 or 5 and they were getting fed up, and you put up with the passes and odd bits because you could't face saying "and one more time".

One of my old jobs was floor manager for TV, and in your earpieces you'd have the director screaming "For F**ks sake, can't they get it right - do it again", and you'd translate this to "nearly there, if we could just have one more please, positions everyone'

Okay thanks, I know what you mean in some of the spots. One of the actors didn't show up, so I had to write the character out of the plot, but doing so, caused me to have plot holes as a result. The location where the time travel was suppose to take place, also became unvailable so I had to find another one, fast.

I guess next time, the lesson to learn is, don't rewrite during shooting cause it will just lead to plot holes? And instead take time off to rewrite the script, but make sure it holds together, and get several opinions first, instead of trying to keep the shoot dates?

When you say I didn't break the 180 degree rule and the actors moved instead, how did they move exactly? They both seem on the same sides of the screen to me, so how did they move, if I didn't break the 180 rule?

The unfortunate thing about zero budget land (which I assume this was done in) is that you can't really protect yourself against this kinda stuff. Somebody's almost always going to have something better to do instead of working for free on a given day unless you have really really devoted people who take their obligations seriously. It's happened to me, other filmmakers I've worked with, probably all of us.

Best thing you could do is be willing to reschedule days or scrounge up a few hundred bucks per day per actor (or however much folks in your area need to hold them in place). It sucks but that's flimmaking.

Oh okay. Well for the feature I will pay the actors for sure. I hope that helps. Do you think I should have someone on the set like Mel Gibson did for Braveheart, that I could get opinions on, as to how the acting is, and what can be done to direct the performances?

My advice is to make a few more shorts before attempting a feature film. Directing is like other skills, you have to practice them. I know someone who directed a full professional feature film after making a short, but he had the background and had developed the skills through working in theatre and TV in order to do this.

From the questions you're asking I suspect you may not be ready for directing a feature film, so I would hold off and make a few more shorts. I know one director who did this for a few years and they had a name for making good shorts.

Sometimes you do need to get someone to replace a no show actor. I did it on a film I made, I got one of the extras to replace the missing actor, it wasn't the ideal casting, but it worked. On another I had the costume guy play a helicopter crew man because the person supposed to be doing the role had to take one of the electricians to the hospital.

Scriptwriting involves a lot of rewrites, Get people who will be critical to read through it, however, it's not a mechanical following what they say, you've got to interpret it so that it works for what you're trying to do. In the end you have to own it.

If you can't find suitable readers, leave it for a few days, print it out and go to a coffee shop or similar and read it again. Strangely, printing it out gives you a fresh perspective on what you've written.

Again there lots of books on scriptwriting, acting for the screen (Micheal Caine has written a good one) and directing.

Okay thanks. I read some books on screenwriting. The one that helped the most was John Truby's The Anatomy of Story.

Are their any books that give advice on how to deal with actors dropping out, and losing locations, without having it result in plot holes? How to keep the plot holding together, while having to do rewrites during shooting, and therefore, not having time to get people's opinions? Cause it seems a problem I had before is the plot not holding together, if you make any changes, resulting in holes then. Any books that talk about that specifically though?

Cause Truby's book talks about rewriting the script till it's perfect, not keeping it perfect, if you have to make changes during shooting though.

It's your experience that prevents plot holes etc. You need to know your story and the characters' relationships and their needs backwards and know how the changes will affect these. There are lots of examples of reality bringing about changes; you have to think it out, so that these alterations are working out to the good, rather than causing a disaster. Plus what works on the page as written may not work when you have actors having to speak the lines or play out the action.

A couple of Steven Spielberg examples are:

Harrison Ford is ill, he can't do the big fight with the Arab swordsman, instead Spielberg gets Indie to pull out his gun to shoot the blade swinging warrior.

In "Jaws" the mechanical shark called Bruce isn't working as it should, instead Spielberg works it so you don't see the shark so much, resulting in more suspense than might have possibly been the case.

Scripts will always go through a "rewrite" when you're filming and again when you're editing. The answers won't be found in a book because your film doesn't have a "how to" manual, so you need to go back to the first principles of your film's story. If you know these well enough, you can make those decisions fairly quickly and mostly make the right ones.

Blimey Ryan, you seem to be doing everything - I didn't realise you wrote the script too. I wrote one show script - a musical. I figured I'd worked on hundreds so could do it easily. My wife read it and said it was terrible. My friend read it and said it was terrible. The guy I asked to direct it said it was terrible, and stupidly I pushed on with it, making tweaks and changes. The opinion was that the music was nice and the script was terrible. One review said "The cast should be commended on their performances with a simply shocking script'. So for me - I shall never do another.

The cuts that really needed sorting are when you are near the lockers. When you reset for the reverse angle, she looks the wrong way. Watch her turn to the left, or to the right.

Oh okay thanks, I will try to look out for that.

As for actors looking the in the right direction, one scene I wanted to do, was where two actors were talking but I wanted dead on shots of them looking straight forward into the camera at each other. Kind of like in an Ozu movie.

However, one of the actors refused to look dead on to the camera, and kept saying that he would be breaking the forth wall, and refused to do it. So I was forced to use the wide mastershot as a result. How do you get an actor do shots like that, without them thinking they are going to break the fourth wall?

You dont hire those people. Those people are idiots. You make better choices during casting. An actor’s job, literally is basically to do what you tell them as the director.

Okay thanks, but I don't know if an actor will have a problem like that in the audition at the hiring period. I don't find things out till later.

For example, the woman in the short film did much better in the audition than she did during shooting. During shooting, I couldn't figure out why but I could tell that the audition was better.

My answer was perhaps a bit brash.

But seriously, I think all of this comes down all of these people (hopefully) being amateur/nonprofessional actors. I'm willing to bet these issues would magically disappear if you start using professional actors from a talent/casting agency. They will be consistent from audition day to shoot day, and not say stupid things about not being able to look into the cam 'cause it breaks the fourth wall. Unless maybe if you get Edward Norton. So don't get Edward Norton.

In the amateur/unpaid world there are still good people who care, but you will have to seek them out and no I don't know how to find them without wading through a sea of garbage people. But if/when you do, you can use the same people over and over instead of auditioning new ones. A bit stale/predictable, perhaps, to see the same faces over and over again in a filmmaker's work, but surely preferable to people who can't actor or take direction.

Oh okay thanks, I didn't think you were being brash I don't think. I thought the problem was me as director not being able to bring out the performances, and it was all me and not the actors.

But how do some directors, bring out good performances in non-actors, like movies like City of God, or The Battle of Algiers, or El Mariachi, which I read used a lot of non actors as major characters, if that's true.

As for keep on making short films, I don't think I can do that. It's just I've saved up money for the feature and I can't afford to keep spending more on shorts, if I plan to make the feature.

Plus I feel I've been helping out on other people's projects and doing my own short films for years now, which is fine, but eventually, like the filmmakers I helped out, I think it's time I take the plunge and do a feature, cause I can't afford to do shorts forever, I feel.

Regarding non actors, the secret is investing a lot of time into the casting, you may go through hundreds of people to find the right person. You also spend time working with them before the filming starts. especially young people. On one short film I made there was a child in the main role, we auditioned a nearly a hundred children for the part and then we auditioned every professional actor around who were suitable for the other parts.

How good a film is going be is 80% decided before a single frame is shot.

On "City of God" they used improvisation and had workshops before the filming. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jun/09/how-we-made-city-of-god

If you want to make a feature, I would invest time in learning about acting. It's the quality of the acting (and the script) that tends gets a film selected for festivals, not the aspect ratio. The selectors are only going to give you five minutes viewing before moving onto the next film, if it doesn't grab them.

Okay thanks. How do you have hundreds of people show up though? When I cast my short film before, only about 1-5 people showed up for the parts. It's probably going to be more showing up for the feature, but I'm wondering how do you get hundreds to show up?

Also, how long should I wait between casting and production to prepare the actors, do you think then?

We were proactive, we went around schools etc for the child.

I don't think we auditioned hundreds of actors, I think we had about 30 professional actors at the auditions. You can be very lucky with your small number, but if you don't have the right people showing up, you do need to keep looking. I was very lucky in that regard with one film, but usually it won't work out like that. For a feature film you'd see the actors agents and look through their actors and select some for auditions, a proactive agent may do this for you.

One difference is that we had a budget to pay union miniums to the actors, professional actors like to practice their craft and a short doesn't take much time, plus they may get a chance to play the leading roles. That's something they may not get to do in a larger production.

There are no rules, it depends on the production. If it's "City of God" months or even a year, a couple of weeks in advance of the shooting may be OK for a short. You do want to know you've got actors. plus a list possible reserves before shooting starts. Having the main actors booked at least a month in advance should be a target on a feature, if you wish to aviod last minute rushing around and even further in advance for name actors, who may be in demand. Rehearsal time in advance of the filming would need to be budgeted for on a feature.

Some Directors shout a lot, some are blunt and rude, and some quieter, supportive and willing to listen - but they then ALL say we're doing it this way, and the actors have had their say, been listened to, and then adapt. If people 'smell' a fresh director, they abuse them - the I know best attitude, but equally, the director at some point says NO. We will do it this way. You lack the confidence in your decisions. This is where you struggle. In my role, I let people do their thing where possible, but at some point I just have to step in and get it done and much is down to respect. If they know you know your stuff, they'll do it your way. If they peg you as green, or worse - indecisive, the tail is wagging the dog.

Okay thanks. When it comes to telling actors we are going to do it this way, what if it's like in my example, where I wanted the actor to look into the camera, and I told him that is how we are doing it but he kept insisting that he cannot as it will ruin the scene. What do you do if they keep insisting?

There is also something I did understand in the advice on my short film here:

I think acting schools would be smiling. The processes of stage vs screen acting use exactly the same skills. The differences are in how they are used. Characterisation, voice, posture, facial expression and the acting core are exactly the same. An actor can act. Look at the big names, they may be movie or TV based and swap happily into theatre, or they could be Royal Shakespearian actors and become captain of a spaceship. Some people even have a totally different natural accent to their on screen one - it's called acting for a reason. They learn different techniques for theatre vs the others because the viewer is in a perpetual long shot wide angle vista. Film actors can convey with an eye twitch or glance so much, but they're taught all this. They do radio too don't forget.

Re: the crash edits - just watch it. There's no point me telling you the timecode of the non-sequential stuff because you need to learn to spot them. They are mainly edits where the flow is broken - maybe a cut at just the wrong moment, or one that makes you go 'what happened'. Leaning against a wall in one shot - being away in another, that kind of thing.

here's one though. "You found something, what's it going to cost me". He is on her right, stick in hand. It cuts to her facing 180 degrees around and now he is on her left. That's not crossing the line, the actors have actually moved and it goes BANG in my brain. Then it swaps back? Over and over again - every edit shots out. Did she then exit through a wall? Certainly not the entrance?

she leaves and we see her in a car. Then we saw the red soft top which didn't register at first was not her, second time, I saw the roof of the suv, and realised the red car was not her. the driver too small to identify. Who is it? No idea? The red car pulls in and just at the end I think it could be the fella who warned her? Probably, but not definitely.she walks up and suddenly we see an open space? I thought he parked at his home - looks like a suburban street? I've gone into teacher/essay mode, sorry. In the field with the two guys, what is the messy pile of junk on the right? What is it's importance? He says he thought he was being followed - we saw him drive out and her pull out to follow, just once, then he parked. just down the road? Miles away? what made him think she was following? No interior of him glancing in the mirror, or her trying to hide - we saw none of that? His secret raging process done in the open air, next to a busy road? Really? One bottle at a time? He can time travel and choses to age bottles of wine, one at a time, requiring a car journey?

There's another continuity error in the Is this a time machine section. He has the stick in his left hand, with the end visible at the bottom, the stick going up. Then in the next shot, he's probably let it slip down to the dangling position while out of frame, then it moves again. Very small slips but they jump out. He wasn't coached on the stick actions, so probably didn't even realise they were not continuous.

It's not bad Ryan - but the script is mangled in places, the locations simply odd, and the story so full of holes it's like Dutch cheese. However, so much was really fixable. You need to think hard about shooting two handers - continuity is really important, but messing up a head pointing direction was a big one. We also only got to see one view of the filing room - the second shot had a blank wall? So many shots had no need for camera movement apart from pan and tilt, so why hand hold them? Nothing in it made me even think about the aspect ratio. There were no vistas, or amazing locations. 16:9 would have been fine. The various over the shoulder shots were not that brilliant - especially the one where you didn't get all the reverse head in like in the office 34 secs in - did you even need her in the shot at all? A detailed shot of his face would have worked probably even better.

The killer for me is the time machine inventor telling her not to look in that particular filing cabinet as that one is the secret one. That stretches imagination just a little too far.

The story could have worked well, but the script was mangled to death, and I just don't think real people speak like that. You threw away the ending. Let's try a bottle of that time wine while we still can - you get her get out of frame, when the perfect ending would have been for her to say that to his face, and to finish on his silent response as it sinks in.The end edit is at a perfect cutting point to see him stand in the next clip - a kind of comma, for what comes next, when we wanted a full stop (period), exclamation mark final bump.

Don't take it to heart - but this is the kind of thing that people do on a media/film studies course in their first year. By year two and three, they don't make these mistakes any longer.

For what it is worth, I'm afraid I would not work with these actors again. After watching the thing two or three times, there are so many basic acting mistakes. actors make mistakes with lines, especially with re-writes, but you have to repeat it until they sink in before moving on. I got the impression these were probably take 4 or 5 and they were getting fed up, and you put up with the passes and odd bits because you could't face saying "and one more time".

One of my old jobs was floor manager for TV, and in your earpieces you'd have the director screaming "For F**ks sake, can't they get it right - do it again", and you'd translate this to "nearly there, if we could just have one more please, positions everyone'

There is also something I do not understand in the advice here. You said that when the woman leaves, where does she go, certainly not through the entrance.

She does in fact go out the exact same entrance when she came in. What did I do wrong to make it seem like she went out a different way, just so I know to avoid that in the future?

Another is "Performance" with the writer Donald Commell co directing with the film's DP Nicolas Roeg.

Pardon me, sir... I have a memo for you. It's from Turner.


https://youtu.be/Nr76UV4sESg?t=70

I'm not sure I can explain Ryan. You either see it, or you don't. To the viewer they are in a room we have not seen, or could it be a corridor? We only see the view you present, we guess the rest, but in any shot the actors face a compass direction. When we see them move, we know which way they go. Watch it again and see if we, not you, know how she exits the room? I didn't.


You've still not got the directing idea. You gave the actor job. You wrote the script. You have the vision. You need them to do it a certain way. You have the option to stop and explain why you want them tondo a certain thing, or you just tell them to do it and assure hem it's what you want. It's clear you're letting your actors ignore you. If you are paying them, they must do what you say to get paid. If they are volunteering, then only your skill, personality and stature will work. They may be right or they may be wrong, but it's your call. If you have established a kind of cooperative not hierarchical structure, you've lost control. It's supposed to be a pyramid,neither you at the top. Anything else is a disaster in the making.

Okay thanks. When it comes to telling actors we are going to do it this way, what if it's like in my example, where I wanted the actor to look into the camera, and I told him that is how we are doing it but he kept insisting that he cannot as it will ruin the scene. What do you do if they keep insisting?

There is also something I did understand in the advice on my short film here:

There has to be reason for having them looking directly into the lens. For example. the camera has become a POV, that is it has become the character's view of the world - their point of view. Perhaps the other character is hypnotizing them, this should be communicated to the actor, so they know why they're doing it . Another is that the character is acknowledging the audience's existence and is communicating directly to them, for example the opening of "A Clockwork Orange".

In dialogue scenes actors don't usually look directly into the lens, but sometimes very close to the edge of the lens when doing a tight single. To assist, a camera tape mark can be placed on the matte box to give them an eye line.

Often the off screen actor is moved close to the camera to assist with these shots. I gather Micheal Caine goes into how the actors can deal with this in his book on acting, if not, you can google an old acting masterclass he did (I think it was for the BBC), where he goes into techniques to bring their eye line closer to the camera.

There has to be reason for having them looking directly into the lens. For example. the camera has become a POV, that is it has become the character's view of the world - their point of view. Perhaps the other character is hypnotizing them, this should be communicated to the actor, so they know why they're doing it . Another is that the character is acknowledging the audience's existence and is communicating directly to them, for example the opening of "A Clockwork Orange".

In dialogue scenes actors don't usually look directly into the lens, but sometimes very close to the edge of the lens when doing a tight single. To assist, a camera tape mark can be placed on the matte box to give them an eye line.

Often the off screen actor is moved close to the camera to assist with these shots. I gather Micheal Caine goes into how the actors can deal with this in his book on acting, if not, you can google an old acting masterclass he did (I think it was for the BBC), where he goes into techniques to bring their eye line closer to the camera.

Oh well I wanted it to be a tense scenes between to people kind like a scene like this where they appear to look towards the camera:

The Silence of the Lambs (9/12) Movie CLIP - Screaming Lambs (1991) HD - YouTube

Or are they not looking quite towards the camera. Hopkins looks like he is.

I'm not sure I can explain Ryan. You either see it, or you don't. To the viewer they are in a room we have not seen, or could it be a corridor? We only see the view you present, we guess the rest, but in any shot the actors face a compass direction. When we see them move, we know which way they go. Watch it again and see if we, not you, know how she exits the room? I didn't.


You've still not got the directing idea. You gave the actor job. You wrote the script. You have the vision. You need them to do it a certain way. You have the option to stop and explain why you want them tondo a certain thing, or you just tell them to do it and assure hem it's what you want. It's clear you're letting your actors ignore you. If you are paying them, they must do what you say to get paid. If they are volunteering, then only your skill, personality and stature will work. They may be right or they may be wrong, but it's your call. If you have established a kind of cooperative not hierarchical structure, you've lost control. It's supposed to be a pyramid,neither you at the top. Anything else is a disaster in the making.

Well as far as the audience not knowing where she went, there are other movies where it will show a character leave a room, but you don't see the character leave the room, you just see the other character's reaction to the person leaving. What are those movies doing differently?

There ARE some precendents for people looking into the lens in dialogue scenes...I think there was some of that in Shayamalan's "Signs". Warranted? I don't know. But a (once) prominent filmmaker did it.

Jody Foster is not looking directly into the lens, she's looking very close, just above the lens (eg the outer edge/filter holder). perhaps slightly off centre.

You do need to have a dramatic reason for them looking directly into lens, some come very close to doing so, but don't actually do so.

Oh okay thanks, I will have the actor not look directly in then but very close.

What about the scene in mine when the women leaves though? In other movies you will see a person leave a room, but you don't actually see the person leave the room, but the other person's reaction to it.

What did I differently that makes the viewer think she left a different way that she came in, when in fact, she went out the exact same way?

The set up is key, if characters are going to do actions off camera the audience needs to know the geography of the location so they can form a mental image of where the off screen character is in relation to what they're seeing.

The secret is hiding the set up, so that the audience don't know it's a set up and then having the pay off later on.

Just because you know it doesn't mean the audience does. The set up prepares the audience.

This becomes even more important if you're going in for time travel, worm holes or inter-dimensional shifts. "Back to the Future" is jammed packed with set ups in the first act.