It depends if you're a good director. If not, go in another direction.

Oh okay. I was told by other filmmakers I worked with that I got to start taking on multiple jobs and stop trying to be a jack of all trades. They said that I should pick one specific job and stick with it. But is this just not how it's done, and you have to take on multiple jobs though maybe?
What’s the point in specializing in something that’s not in demand and you can’t get hired for? I have a friend who does sound and specializes in corporate work mainly providing audio services for events like seminars.

Since you’re having trouble breaking into the movie industry I’m suggesting you do freelance work that you can approach a client directly and build off that. Producing 1-2 minute commercials is more manageable and you’ll get paid, instead of trying to create feature film on your own dime. I’m suggesting you specialize in low end commercials to get you started. They require many of the skills to make a movie just on a significantly smaller scale.

Yeah, I really cant see the point of working toward boom op or anything sound related unless thats your passion. Ideally you would find something, as suggested above, that helps develop the skillset for the thing you ultimately want to do.

If someone’s dream is to be a rock star they would probably tried to get paid session work, teach singing lessons, perform at weddings and corporate events in the meantime rather than trying to become a roadie.

Oh I just thought sound I prefer to do as oppose to some other jobs, and thought I would be good as a boom op. I am more passionate about sound, compared to cinematography or production design for example.

I've tried the solo videographer thing before, but I find it to be very difficult, if I am doing everything myself and just prefer to work in a team compared to doing everything myself.

You probably have to work up to having a team by getting better clients with bigger budgets, so that you in effect become producer/director, maybe shoot or something too. That's what many folk in this biz do (not "filmmakers", but video production producers). If you can only attract clients with $300 budgets you probably can't hire anyone to assist you. If you work up to $3000, or $30000, etc. then you can. But you need a reel of competent work to attract bigger/better clients, which will come from having successful, smaller (possibly solo/one-man band) gigs.

Okay sure. Hopefully the current gig will turn out well, which is a nature corporate video. The thing I don't like doing is cinematography and I would rather leave that up to someone else, and much prefer sound, but I can try to get use to it.

From what you're saying. you should be a sound recordist.

Yes you like doing sound more than cinematography, but do you want to do sound 15+ days a month, for the rest of your career? It would be hard to become a successful sound guy and then magically transition to a completely unrelated area, i.e. writer/director.

Knowing the answers to questions like that will tell you what you should get into as you'll know what you want to work toward.

Yep that's true. And maybe I should stick to concentrating more on directing as well then.

Oh okay. I was told by other filmmakers I worked with that I got to start taking on multiple jobs and stop trying to be a jack of all trades. They said that I should pick one specific job and stick with it. But is this just not how it's done, and you have to take on multiple jobs though maybe?
I think you’d be better off working for institution like a university or a large company as some sort of media tech/aid.

All this creative cinema work sounds fun and interesting until you realize how difficult it is to do and that you’re not getting paid either. You’re either are going to succeed or reach rock bottom and then you’ll only be too glad to take one of those boring 9-5 jobs you looked down on.

Yeah sure, and that can be okay too. But I still want to advance in and become a better director overall. Just thought that since I also have a passion for audio, maybe I could use that to get on set experience too.

I know sound people who have become documentary directors. It really depends on what you want to direct,nothing stopping you getting paid work in the sound department, while trying to get your own film off the ground. However, if you continue as a director would depend on the quality of the completed film and if this is a bucket list thing or you seriously wish have a career as a director.

Oh okay. I want to direct fictional feature films. I've helped out on other documentaries in the past, but did not like that type of filmmaking cause you do not know what people will say, whether or not in can be used in your favor, etc. I prefer scripted shoots for directing, and keep things fictional.

I would want a career as director over sound for sure.

If you're a working director, that may not be a luxury you can afford, you have to get work where you can get it.

Yep true, I just thought I would succeed more on movies that are scripted cause that means more control. I thought if it tried to stick to products that are more controlled, that they would likely turn out better.

This seems to go back to your copy and paste approach to film making and your difficulty with thinking on your feet. Even Kubrick, perhaps the most controlling of directors, knew when to let go and let the actors come up with lines. Just because you are in "control" doesn't mean that you're coming up with something that's any good.

Regarding the "you do not know what people will say, whether or not in can be used in your favor," this is the same as writing a script, with the latter you may think it's great but it's actually poor. The unexpected from an interviewee can be the gem you're after or they may go in another direction, how likely this is to happens will depend on your skills as a researcher and an interviewer. Also, you're are still "writing" the story and sometimes it may not be what you think it is.

Directing feature films is probably most unlikely means of earning a living due to the large gaps between productions and you need to other work to pay the bills. Many will start on TV drama (even Steven Spielberg did this), commercials, music videos and documentaries.

The one thing I haven't worked out is where are you actually trying to go with all this? Are you hoping to end up earning a comfortable living doing something you enjoy and also having the time to build a life outside the job? Maybe you just want to be admired as a successful director/boom op/sound recordist/DP or what have you, so that your peers respect you. Maybe you are someone who just can't stick long enough at anything and will always look for the end of the rainbow.

I am a sound recordist, producer, camera operator, editor, promotion designer, PR person and photographer. I do all of those things pretty well but wouldn't consider myself an expert at any of them. My main business now is producing wedding videos for my own business which covers all of the above. My work makes my clients happy, gives me total control and gives me a comfortable living. My subject matter doesn't have a script, but is full of characters, emotion and drama, all of which are a challenge to capture well in the documentary style that I use, requiring confidence in my equipment and ability to be able to cope with constantly changing scenes and location requirements.

You need to decide where you want to go and what path you are going to take to reach it. From what I have read on these threads, you are not someone newly out of college, but are already at an age when many of those decisions should already be bearing fruit. If they are not, then you need to make up you mind what will actually work for you and forget some of the dreams.

Roger

I find it odd that in a topic started to explain the career push to boom op, Ryan is now talking about directing again. I wonder if he actually has a career aspiration at all? Apart from being able to say he's in movies? All these topics morph and twist crazily. I'm losing the plot here now. In a few days, he's switched again!

Tomorrow we will be thinking about being behind the camera.

Far as I can tell, he THINKS he wants to direct, maybe write, but as he keeps being told he's not ready yet or not good enough, he wants to do anything he can to get on sets, to gain experience and get back to directing, and believes booming is something he's good enough at to do so.

I find it odd that in a topic started to explain the career push to boom op, Ryan is now talking about directing again. I wonder if he actually has a career aspiration at all? Apart from being able to say he's in movies? All these topics morph and twist crazily. I'm losing the plot here now. In a few days, he's switched again!

Tomorrow we will be thinking about being behind the camera.
Ryan should be a boxer because he can rope a dope almost as good as Ali.

Many of us had said before he should concentrate on a simpler lower position than director on a professional production. I see this thread and think finally he's taking our advice. But that's when I fell for the rope a dope. He's wants to boom op so he can get on set to become a director or something like that.

He can't get a job as a director, so he tries to be a boom op, he can't get hired as a boom op, so he's going back to trying to be a director...

Well the reason why I went back to directing, is because first I am told to find a job other than directing and do that. So now I inquire about that other job, and now people are saying why do that if I wanted to direct. Should I direct or not then? I don't mean to do a rope a dope, I just find the responses to be contradictory now, that's all.

There is no set path, it really depends on if you wish to earn a living at directing and if you want to do that, you should be aiming at directing anything you can get and these days that includes TV programmes, documentaries etc.

From the sounds of it you haven't yet got a short film selected for any festivals, so you're trying to run (making commercial features) when you haven't yet learnt to walk.

From what you say, you're more likely to learn a living as a sound recordist than a director.

Yeah I have entered festivals but haven't gotten into any yet. But I figure if I want to try to reach a goal, I cannot let festivals determine that on short films.

I am trying to walk as much as I can and I thought getting on other people's set with a skill is the way to go, since I was told to do that by others, to see how things are done more. But eventually I feel I got to take the plunge sometime. As for trying to direct anything, I don't think TV is going to hire me until I have gotten something more out their first. I really want to stay away from documentaries though, cause I attempted one so far, and helped out on others, and you it's uncontrolled, since it's not scripted. You don't know what people are going to say, and how things will turn out in the events you are shooting, compared to a scripted story.

I would say a documentary is more difficult to make than a fictional story because of less control, so I thought I would do fiction before attempting a more challenging, documentary. I want to learn and advance of course, but I feel that fiction is the better route to do so.

It's getting selected for festivals that's key, many more films get entered than get selected. Festivals are a means for other people to judge your quality as a film maker, especially funders, you either do that or have relatives working in the industry.

Documentaries are easy compared to feature films, with a lot less pressure and politics. You have a real limitation if you can't deal with them, remember that you're telling other people's story and if you do your research right, you will know roughly what they're going to say.

Oh okay I thought documentaries would be even more political since they are dealing with real world events and issues.

Well if I going to enter a movie that has much further chance of being selected at a festival, I think I really need to up my game, and get much better actors, and a much better DP. I was told do this for the feature I was planning on but if I do this for a short, should I spend quite a bit more money on bringing in the talent then, if that sounds better?

You need to up your game before even attempting a feature.

Features are also about "real world events and issues", even fairy tales are about real dark things in the real world.

Oh okay, I just thought documentaries were more political since it deals with actual real world events compared to fictional.

But even if I upped my game before a feature, and do it on a short film, I still have to up it quite a bit, so would spending quite a bit more money on it, and bringing in better talent be the right way to do then?

Don't think of shorts as cheap thrown together productions. you don't need to spend money on film stock and lab costs, so you can put more into what's on screen. You're competing with some of the best up and coming talent. so unless you can produce a film that compares to their work and has some kind of personal stamp on it your shorts will get lost in the rush.

Poor chef can spend huge amounts on ingredients and still burn the food. A good chef can make delicious meals from almost anything. A great chef with amazing ingredients produces the best!

Oh okay, so is it about me driving a DP and actors to be good, rather than hiring better ones then? I was just told my biggest problem is the acting and cinematography, so what can I do then, to improve that?

You don't drive them, you select suitable people for the roles and inspire them.

Regarding cinematography, it's a matter of selecting a suitable DP and giving them the appropriate tools. It also depends on what is meant by cinematography and if also includes the shots and their framing, it that's the case you may be better leaving it more to the DP and just give general instructions. It's surprising how little direction is given by feature film directors regarding the camera angles.

If you hire a DP or actors and need to drive them to be better than they are, that's called training, or education. Directors choose trained people. They don't go into teacher moe and encourage them to do their jobs! It's about getting the best of of people, getting them to push their personal boundaries, take chances and even experiment within a framework.

Can I please urge you to NOT say "I've been told .....' You do it all the time and we just cringe waiting for the next crazy thing people have told you that you have believed. Have the courage to reject stupid statements, or at the very least, ask them to explain - which they never do, it seems.

Oh okay thanks. I just thought maybe I should listen to other filmmakers who have done it, cause every time I try to do things my own way, I don't think I get good results. So I thought it's best to follow in the footsteps of people I know who have made more features compared to me.

But, I can try to pick suitable people without having to spend more money on it. I can try looking in other places for those people. As for cinematography, I thought I would choose shots and framing and storyboard those out, but I would want the DP to do the lighting, color and camera movement, since I am not as familiar there, if that sounds good.

I suppose it is what you thing the 'D' in DP means as opposed to being a cameraman/camera operator. The troubles arise when the person selecting the framing and composition does it better than you do - do you go with their idea, because that's what you are paying them for, or are you sufficiently confident your composition is better?

That's why it's never a good move to be less skilled than your crew. The minute you lose control and their respect, you're doomed.

Many of us have said we're not very good directors, and just don't quite have their skill set - but you seem to be unshakable. You won't listen. We tell you to get experience but you resist. If you do loads of sound work, it will NOT make you a Director. It will however, make you a better sound person. A soundie rarely operates cameras, cameras are often uninterested in makeup. Costume people rarely know how to put a plug on. So many skill sets with very little crossover.

To be brutally honest, Ryan has no business being a director, he hasn’t paid his dues on a professional set, his training consists of what he has read or what someone told him just like he copy pastes ideas from other movies. It’s a crazy quilt of opinions, rules and assumptions. I can’t fathom how he could possibly direct a feature film. I know there has been people who have acted/directed a picture maybe Ryan will be the first boom op/director.

I think thats where making your own no/low budget shorts can be helpful...try things and fail and hopefully get better with each project but WITHOUT spending $20000. Maybe a few hundred on each short if necessary.

Working on pro sets in a low position and working your way up is another path, but I dont think sound department is the way to go as youll a) only get better at sound and b) often be too busy to observe the process and learn that way.

PA would be better probably, or somehow become an assistant to a director (NOT the same thing as as assistant director). A colleague of mine somehow was the assistant to the director of Enemy of the State (the Will Smith vehicle from years ago)...helped him out with various tasks, reworked the script with him every night during prepro or maybe during the shoot. Something like that would be great for Ryan but I have no idea how one lucks into that position, especially in Ryan’s area.

Oh okay, I've been a PA on productions over the years so far. So far I've been making shorts for only a few hundred. I would like to correct the mistakes of the acting and cinematography not being very good. But spending money on bringing in talent from further away areas and allowing more people to choose from is not the way to go then?

Better people help but another component is having the judgment to know when those better people arent doing something right. pro actors and DPS still screw up or at least do something different than what you wanted and you have to be able to tell when thats happening AS it happens, not in post. Throwing money at the actors and crew wont solve that problem cause that problem comes from you.

You'll need to move up the budget scale if you want to bring people in. BTW the shorts here, that receive some funding through schemes, have much higher budgets than that, it includes production insurance, equipment rental and other costs. Of course, these budgets are now much smaller than when they were being shot on film and the budget included delivering 35mm prints. This is competitive and so involves selection.

A few hundred dollars would be for entering the film into festivals, unless you only enter the free entry ones. The US ones tend to cost money and you need to enter a few in order to get selected, especially if you apply to the ones that receive a lot of entries

Oh okay. I want to get better at directing actors but it's tough. For example, one of my short films I wanted two actors to walk down a hallway and talk to each other. However, the actress kept stopping her walking and stopped to talk. I just explained that I wanted her to walk and recite her lines simultaneously. But she kept stopping, and I tried to explain to her after every take, where she kept stopping to talk.

Finally I just gave up after like six takes of it. But in this example, what could have done better as director to get her to walk and talk?

Actors vary and sometimes you need to go with what feels natural to them. Was there a reason why she had to keep walking? If there's a reason tell them why they need to keep walking, motivate them into a performance, don't just tell them to keep walking.

It's also possible you may be wrong and she needs to stop because in reality that's what the scene emotionally requires.

Oh well the reason was, is that it was the end of the scene and the character was leaving the building, so I had it storyboarded so that she says her lines and she leaves the door, and the door closing was how I wanted to end the scene. But I suppose this doesn't really have as much to do with acting though, cause I still want the acting to be better of course.

The storyboard is only a snap shot within the scene, why is she saying lines if she's just leaving the building? If they're not adding anything dramatically to the scene, why are they there?

No the lines establish more story, it's just that I wanted her to say them as she left and closed the door, cause I thought it would be a better transition into the next scene.

That sounds like exposition, which is to be avoided in a script.

With all the stops, how close to the door did she finish speaking?

Like right at the door. Oh okay, I didn't think it was exposition since she was still talking about the situation at hand though. Why does it sound like exposition?

She stopped close to the door but I didn't want her to stop and keep going. I just didn't think she would stop and felt it was unnatural.

If she still has dialogue to say and she's reached the door, it's possible you've got too many lines for the walk.

If she's just explaining something, it's exposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative) , You don't need to explain everything and if the characters are opposites it's possible to introduce a measure of conflict that allows you to bury the exposition. Basically show, don't say, unless you're making a soap opera you don't need on the nose dialogue.

"You'll see when we get there" in more intriguing than you explaining everything, plus it has more energy.

Oh well this was one of those cases, where what she was explaining was not going to be shown later though. As for having too much dialogue before she reached the door, I didn't think it was too much, but I wasn't able to tell, since she kept stopping to talk, instead of walking to see. So I was never able to tell, but I think if she had, she could have gotten it all in.

With all the stops and she's till talking at the door, it seems oblivious she has too much dialogue.

Why is she explaining something that you won't see later on? That's exposition. Plus the audience will have probably forgotten about it after a few minutes. At least have them searching and not finding this thing, that's dramatic.

Why did you not just time the dialogue? Easy to see if it fits then, and if critical tells you how long the shot needs to be?