Aren't you asking us to critique your films? That tripod move (and the non-centered titles, and various details in between) are not what I'd consider adequate quality for a finished film. If that's OK with you, and you're proud to put your name on a film like that, then great. Otherwise, if you acknowledge that you're not capable of running the camera, then do not run the camera. Making excuses after the fact does not improve the quality of the film.

Besides, if you bought a tripod, and (I assume) it's your camera, don't you want to be able to use them well? If the PD is *not* available, and you are forced to step in, don't you want the shots to look professional? I thought you wanted to make a *great* film, not a mediocre one.

Yeah I wanted to make a great film of course, it just didn't end up turning out that way. Aside from the opening shot I did, and as far as camera movement goes, the DP did the rest of the camera movement. Is the camera movement better for the rest of it? And I rented the tripod just before shooting. I did some practice runs, but I should have done more. The tripod I know own, since the store owner sold me to because she was getting rid of it. But next time I will be sure to practice more if I have to step in, or just get a DP who hast the equipment than can do it too hopefully.

But what about the camera movement for the rest of it, since the only movement that was commented on, was the opening shot?

As for the moving being too dark, I feel that the movie is darker on youtube compared to on my original file, but can youtube darken a movie, once it's been uploaded? Also, I know I've been told to make zero budget ones with whoever I can find, but I thought that if I get better actors and a better DP, that would make a difference, so isn't it even worth trying? Why is trying something new, so bad?

My point is that you should go out and start practicing tomorrow! If you don't, and you don't develop that skill, then if the DP suddenly calls in sick, you won't have the necessary skill to run the camera.

Do you have something to do tomorrow that's more important than developing a skill related to film making? Is it impossible for you to squeeze in one hour of practicing pan/tilt moves?

What about the difference in exposure between the "home" scenes and the office scene? Was the original footage that badly exposed? Or was that a color grading error?

C'mon Ryan, instead of making excuses, why not make an effort?????

What's the most important thing you learned from Jay Rose?

Tomorrow I am editing another project I am working on for someone. I will have more time once that is finished.

Well usually when I make my own, I am recording sound and booming as well. So I have to do that job as well. So I can't be the DP if it's a scene that involves recording dialogue though, but I can when it comes to shots without recording sound during.

However, I don't have all the equipment to be camera operator. For example when it comes to the gimbal shots, I have leave that up to someone who has a gimbal. Unless I should by my own gimbal and practice with that too, as well as record the sound?

How much should I buy and own, as oppose to hiring others who are experts with it?

When you say the difference between the original footage and the office scene, dealing with exposure, this is why I want to hire a better DP, and use actual money to bring a better one in. Is that really so bad to do that? Other directors and producers spend money on proper ones, to get good cinematography, so why can't I? Why do I have to either be my own DP, or settle for someone willing to work for free, when I spend money on a better product. Is that so wrong?

I could learn cinematography to develop my skill but other directors leave it up to other DPs, so how do they do it? Who is Jay Rose? I googled the name, but do not know who that is.

But are you also suggesting that I should be my own DP on a regular basis and not use anyone else? Because a part of me was considering getting a gimbal since I find myself wanting one from time to time for certain shots. Or is a gimbal not worth buying, and I should just hire a gimbal operator?

When you say was the original footage was that badly exposed, or was it a color grading error, what is the error exactly? Is it too dark you are saying?

After thinking about it, you are right, and I should practice the camera movement more on my own. However, I don't have a gimbal to practice the gimbal moves, or a dolly to practice the dolly moves. Should I buy them, or should I just rent or hire someone who has them? Or is it important to buy them and have them ready to go whenever?

Point out a few things that haven't been mentioned:

1. Many of the shots are out of focus. In fact I can clearly see your dlsr is set to auto focus when it should be set to manual. The scene at her home the camera is hunting between her and the background.

2. I can also spot that you must of done a green screen re shoot of the man at the desk. During the reverse angle he has been poorly keyed.

I'm not discouraging you from trying, but you have plenty to work on. If I were you I wouldn't be as self satisfied as you seem. You have yet to show us anything that would warrant you doing a feature film let alone anything with a substantial budget.

The only benefit of this piece is you got practice and could use it to learn what to improve on. Otherwise it demonstrates that you are below average of all aspects of film making. There is nothing special that I can see in particular when it comes to directing. I could over look all the technical flaws if there was something else to see.

Ryan, you are trying to put words in my mouth (or ideas in my head). I didn't say anything about a gimbal or dolly. But if you have a tripod (hopefully with some sort of fluid head) and a camera, at least be able to use those adequately.

Also I never suggested that you be DP on all your projects. I said in case the DP calls in sick or there's an emergency, then you'd be better prepared to take over.

THIS is a good example of overthinking. I meant what I said. I did not mean what I didn't say. Why do you want to over-complicate things?

Look at the exposure yourself. Don't you think the "house" shots are darker than the office shots? Is the house supposed to be dark? Are you trying to convey a mood? Or is that just bad exposure?

You ask about hiring a DP. The point is that you did NOT hire a DP, so this film ended up with visual problems. Hell, if you really have any money (which I doubt, since you didn't even buy $10 handcuffs for the other project) hire a DP, hire a sound man so you don't have to do that, hire a good colorist, hire some better actors, and get a composer more to your liking. MEANWHILE we are talking about the film that you posted. You did NOT hire anyone, the results suffer, you asked for a critique, you are getting one

Stop making excuses.

When you googled Jay Rose, didn't you find any results that look even slightly relevant to what you're doing? I wonder whether you even bothered to use Google and look at the results.

Ryan!

"In the Mood for Wrath" has ... wait for it ... HANDCUFFS that show up in the home invasion scene toward the end. So you DO know where to find them!

Yes I ended up reshooting that shot once I got some handcuffs.

Ryan, you are trying to put words in my mouth (or ideas in my head). I didn't say anything about a gimbal or dolly. But if you have a tripod (hopefully with some sort of fluid head) and a camera, at least be able to use those adequately.

Also I never suggested that you be DP on all your projects. I said in case the DP calls in sick or there's an emergency, then you'd be better prepared to take over.

THIS is a good example of overthinking. I meant what I said. I did not mean what I didn't say. Why do you want to over-complicate things?

Look at the exposure yourself. Don't you think the "house" shots are darker than the office shots? Is the house supposed to be dark? Are you trying to convey a mood? Or is that just bad exposure?

You ask about hiring a DP. The point is that you did NOT hire a DP, so this film ended up with visual problems. Hell, if you really have any money (which I doubt, since you didn't even buy $10 handcuffs for the other project) hire a DP, hire a sound man so you don't have to do that, hire a good colorist, hire some better actors, and get a composer more to your liking. MEANWHILE we are talking about the film that you posted. You did NOT hire anyone, the results suffer, you asked for a critique, you are getting one

Stop making excuses.

When you googled Jay Rose, didn't you find any results that look even slightly relevant to what you're doing? I wonder whether you even bothered to use Google and look at the results.

Do you mean Jay Rose the hockey player?

You're right sorry for putting words in your mouth. I just wasn't sure what to expect if I am to learn the camera movement as well. But yes, I can learn the tripod and have practiced more with it since I got it.

And yes I did get a DP for this short is what I meant. The DP shot everything else besides the opening shot I did. As for why the office scene looks too different from the home scene, it was the DP that made that decision, but I am guessing it has to with that the lights in the home were suppose to be coming from lamp motivated sources, where as the office lights were ceiling flourescent sources. That is just my guess, but the DP decided that. Should I not have left that decision up to the DP?

For the house I was trying to convey a dark mood though, since the guy is suppose to be drugged and what follows after that. But did we go too dark with the lighting?

When I said "hire a DP" I meant in the future, because you were asking whether you should hire one or be DP yourself.

As far as exposure differences, I think that somewhat depends on where you expect this to be watched. In a dark theatre, with recommended SMPTE screen brightness, it would probably be fine as it is. But as I said, in a well lighted room, on my laptop, it's hard for me to see what's happening in some of the darker areas. Other people might have a different opinion. I was just commenting on my own viewing experience. And if that's your intention, then so be it. Watching the film, with the intention of giving a critique, I certainly was aware of the difference.

And no, not Jay Rose the hockey player. Really, did you google it? Actually on Google? And you didn't find anything relevant to film, video, etc.?

Oh you mean this Jay Rose:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producing_Great_Sound_for_Film_and_Video

As for the grading, when it comes to color grading I read that it's best to color grade with no lights on in the room, so the color grading can be more accurate, so I tend to do that when grading. Unless I shouldn't that?

So if the results suffered because I didn't hire anyone, this is why I thought I should spend more money on future projects, and hire a better DP and actors, but others say I should make zero budget shorts. But if I do that without hiring more experienced people, I feel the results will still suffer. I guess I just feel I will learn more, if I hire more experienced people for a project.

Yes, that's the Jay Rose I was thinking of. When I Google the name, he is the #5 result, so I can't imagine why you didn't find him earlier. (And sadly, I just checked his website tonight, and learned that Jay passed away this past spring.)

The reason I mentioned Jay relates to one of your past threads about audio. You had asked a technical question and didn't quite grok the answers you were getting. I suggested that you buy one of Jay's books and read it, because he was very good at explaining audio. You replied that yes, you would buy the book (and presumably read it). The fact that you now don't recognize the name leads me to suspect that you never bought the book and never read it.

I would like to think that you take some of our advice to heart. But I guess reading a book about audio, and learning the basics, is not on your priority list. Whereas I just bought a 1940 Harry Olson reprint last week. I will read it and learn something (even though the math is far over my head). C'est la vie.

I suggested making shorts for two reasons. First, you could just go out and do some very short shots e.g. people riding past on bicycles; that would let you master your pan/tilt tripod. (And later cut them together if you want to.) Second, if you do not *presently* have the budget for a big feature you could at least make some low- or no-budget shorts (with much simpler scripts, smaller cast, etc.), which would give you needed experience and confidence; then you be better prepared to shoot the feature when the time comes.

Oh yes, I do have the book I just forgot it was written by Jay Rose. Sorry about that. Yes I will read it. Sorry I was reading two other filmmaking books and wanted to finish those first. But I will read it, yes, I promise. I do have it. It's not that I don't want to learn about reading audio, it's just I got to reading other books on directing then started doing projects for other people... But I will read it, I promise. Thanks again for the book recommendation.

I'm sorry to hear that about Jay Rose.

Speaking of the audio, what can I improve there then? I recorded all the production audio, and someone else did the post mixing.

Regarding the tripod, you shouldn't buy equipment just because it's going cheap. Buying a good fluid head because it's at a good price makes sense, purchasing only on the basis of the price doesn't.

A decent tripod is probably going to cost as much as than your current camera, if not more.

You should reshoot a shot unlit it's right, even though you probably liked the motorbike driving though in this particular case. The jerky camera moves broke the smooth flow required for the cut to the tilt up in the next shot to work.

The rest of the film is of variable quality. The acting reminds me of some of the old exploitation films of the 1970s and 80s.

Oh okay thanks. I can look other places for other actors as well as practice more with the tripod, for if I have to step in, if the DP is not available. However, when it comes to movement, is the opening tripod shot the only bad movement, since none of the rest of the camera movement was commented on?

I would say, that the rest were OK, if a bit awkward a times, there were also flaws in various places. It feels like a very average student film, that feels more like a TV drama than cinema.

Pretty much no. You're giving people titles they do not deserve. I have never, ever called myself a DoP. I am content calling myself a cameraman. I'm still learning on framing and composition, and throughout my career, I've been competent at technical and lacking in 'art'. The framing and composition are all, nearly there - but for a shot so near the top of the movie, how did you consider a shot that moves one direction, then another, then does it in a very lurch style - something perfect? If you shot the scene ten times, and that was the best - then the new pan and tilt head you bought probably came from the pound store - I presume you have Dollar stores?

The best actor you have is the older war damaged guy, but some of the others were just not believable at all.

As for the 80s 'feel' - just the picture, the strange colours, the problems of shooting in a corridor with no lighting, the lack of that modern crisp image. It looked like it was shot on Betacam, or in some scenes even 16mm film. Sort of grungy feel, that I cannot put into words, but look at the difference in image quality between your battle damaged clip and this - is it lower resolution, or something you've done tweaking the colours? I really don't know, it just looks old. The trouble is that the script again is really cheesy. Do people speak like that in Saskatoon? The words they are speaking sound false.

Oh I forgot. The title font looks like something Michael Jackson used in thriller (don't Google it - I mean the feel of the red caption, not the actual real font) Sort of old 'B' Movie titles. Does that really work?

I'm really sorry - but it was a painful watch, and not the kind of thing that works for you. The credit after the others of RYAN WRAY in bigger text is also less than modest. The kind of thing a really famous actor would demand, as in a separate, large font credit, rather than sharing screen space. I've had agents who measured credit size in millimetres and compared it to the other lead with contractually equal billing, and the endless arguments about the length of a persons name only fitting the space if it's smaller. So your credit was a BIG one.

I actually changed my mind, I'm glad you posted your movie, instead of you asking the countless random out of context questions. We have something tangible to talk about.

While you might feel bad about the overwhelming criticism, this is actually helpful feedback that you most likely are not receiving from friends, family, or prospective collaborators. Most people are not going to tell you the truth to your face out of politeness. Prospective crew and cast worth anything would want to see samples of your work. They would undoubtedly politely decline if you showed them this.

This movie is only useful as a learning experience. It provides tangible proof of your current level but couldn't be used for your reel. What it shows is that you are an amateur, with very little experience, no professional equipment, bad actors, bad script, and untalented crew.

Many of the technical details are easier to fix. For example, rent or buy a better camera or practice more with the tripod. All of this is rather straight forward matter of craftsmanship. What is far more difficult is what is your ability as a director. How would you go about improving intangibles such as judgement, leadership, creativity, vision, and decision making. Buying better equipment or hiring a better cast will not make you a better director. I thought the whole purpose of these movies was to showcase your abilities as a director.

Beyond the glaring technical flaws, the real question is your ability as a director. Like other have said the only way to get better is to film more. The concern I have is the amount of time you are spending and the pace of progress. I mean you could spend another 5-10 years making these movies and still not achieve an acceptable level for paid professional work such as the feature film you so desperately want to produce. In order to make progress you have to be able to recognize your shortcomings and find ways to improve them.

In essence you have learned how to film by gleaning bits and pieces of information and opinions from unqualified people instead of going to school, and following that up with many years of real work experience on professional productions where you would learn first hand the process and techniques until all of this would be second nature. There is no hiding this and it shows in your movies.

Making a film without any dialogue would be a good starting point. You're relying far too much on dialogue and the result isn't developing your skills as a film maker.

Making a film without any dialogue would be a good starting point. You're relying far too much on dialogue and the result isn't developing your skills as a film maker.
I could imagine someone already told him his dialog is terrible and suggested he do more action instead. Unfortunately that replaces one problem with another. Now he doesn't have the budget or skill to film things like fights, car chases, etc. This goes back to him complaining that people give conflicting advice. This comes from people recognizing a serious problem but are giving different solutions.

It's like I was telling him before not to try to produce a full film if you can't do most of it well. Like that Scandinavian guy I talked about, his movies have no dialog, he concentrates only on the things he is good at, visual story telling, mood, suspense etc.

Many years ago when I bought a Panasonic camera, I got offered the chance to go on a film making course for two days. All the kit was Panasonic, the trainers were Panasonic staffers and the editors were industry pros who worked (I think) at Pinewood Studios or Elstree.

In a complete reversal of what we're talking about, we were presented with the clips - which were all on tape. We were in two person teams at the editing kit. Some groups had A/B systems so they could do effects - like wipes and dissolves, while the others had just two machines so it was cuts only.

The crafty organisers gave us all exactly the same clips, BUT in different order. we had no script, or even a summary of what the edit was about. From memory we had pretty girl, young fella with a foreign look, two suspicious types - caricature spies or maybe hitmen or similar. We had shots of the girl walking down a road, the same road with the two hit-men, all of them crossing a railway crossing when the barriers were just closing or lifting. We had shots of them creeping up the stairs to an office and various shots of them meeting.

One group produced a short where the girl was unaware she was being followed, but close on her heels were two goons, she went up the stairs and there was her long lost boyfriend, they hugged and the goons came in revealed to be her boyfriends helpers.

Another group identified the arrival of the man, then the girl, the guy but the two goons getting closer and closer,
another group had everything in yet another order. It was really interesting that until the last scene there was no speaking at all. The tension was built by cutting between the things happening, getting tighter and tighter. This was in 1980 or so, and the techniques still stick in my mind. Some of us had the fella as a baddie, some had him as the goodie, the goons were bad in most versions but supportive safety in others. Exactly the same clips but the editing told so many different stories. I really wish I had kept the course tape.

Paul, that sounds like an interesting project. I wonder if the clips were all taken from a finished film, so there was a "correct" sequence, or whether they were shot intentionally for this training course.

I also think it would be good for Ryan to shoot a project without dialog. I guess he could also use music and SFX, but that would add another layer of complexity. I'd think the first thing would be to work on telling a story with only visuals. Just imagine he's using a Bolex H16 and go from there. Preferably a script with a small cast and no impossible visual effects.

Oh okay. Well I thought that dialogue driven stories may be better because dialog is a way of telling the story that is more low key, but that is just what I thought. The next short film script I am trying to get off the ground, has dialogue in it. But since I have recorded audio before, I thought I could handle it. As for if the dialogue is good, I didn't write it, it's someone else's script. I could change the dialog though perhaps, or perhaps that writer is better than me and I should just leave it as is...

Well as far as some of the advice seeming contradictory, I guess one thing I do not understand is, how it was said that getting better actors will not help me as a director. Because I was told not just on here, but other places as well, that the acting is my biggest problem I need to improve. So wouldn't bringing in better actors from other places, improve therefore? I just don't see how this would not improve, if that was the problem. Why wouldn't it, if that's my biggest problem?

Another thing is, I am told the camera sucks, but I was told before, don't worry about the camera, as that is not as important as all these other things. But now I am told the camera quality is distracting. I did use a different camera than the other ones. The other ones, the camera operator had a Sony A7s II, and this one we just used a Canon 7D.

But is the Canon 7D really that bad? I was thinking of using it for the next project, but should I try to get my hands on a different one? I thought that the camera was not that important though, compared to other things.

As for the font, I liked the font in the sense that it looks a little different than usual but still bold looking, but I can choose different fonts of course.

As for the strange colors you pointed out, can you tell me what is strange about the colors specifically? I mean I didn't wanted a cold look to it, but is it too cold looking perhaps?

Thank you very much for all the information and feedback. However, I have another project I was going to use the Canon 7D for since the camera operator with the Sony A7s II is not available now, that is if I cannot find another one to do it. Should I not use that camera though? But this is also why I want to hire a proper DP and proper actors. What I do not understand on here, is that the advice seems to be, don't hire good actors and a DP, because that will not improve. But why wouldn't it, if that's the flaws that are pointed out? I want to pratice my directing in the mean time, but I would like someone else to be the camera operator so I direct. Is that so bad?

Also I was going to ask, was this an improvement over my other shorts, or no?

It doesn't matter so much about the camera, it's the person using that camera that's important. That's the likely cause of your visual inconsistency.

No one here said getting better actors wouldn't help you, if anything it's been the reverse. Good casting will help you produce better films.

What we've been saying is that you don't currently have the funds to hire a DP and actors for a feature film. However, you might have enough to do so for a short.

This short moved faster, but the performances are so poor, that they distract from the story. There's no emotional involvement, in which your battle film works better;

Cinema is a visual medium, currently your films look like daytime TV drama. There are lots of highly visual short films made on low budgets. You're being lazy by relying totally on dialogue.

This isn't a short, but it could be, also great acting by the fly. Call it "Waiting" and leave the audience to workout what happens next. After all Godot never arrives, here someone unknown arrives.

Once Upon a Time in the West The opening sequence 1 - YouTube

Find the right location, with a suitable story and you can do something interesting.

Oh okay. It's weird how you pointed out the opening of Once Upon A Time in the West because I wanted the opening of the feature I wanted to do to be just like that, but people said that that movie is too slow and I would loose the audience if I made something that slow, if those people had a point?

But I was also wonderng, can you tell me what was wrong with the color exactly, so I know what to keep in mind for my taste in color grading?

Actually as for my short film looking like a TV show, I think one of the problems is that I relied too much on close up shots. This is because the actors were not available at the same times, so I would shoot a close up of one, at one time, then when the other arrived, I would shoot a close up of them. But perhaps I should not do this, because relying too much on close ups are a part of what makes it look more like TV? So when you say do one that is no dialogue and all visual, the next short film I was planning on doing does have a fair amount of dialogue in it. But is that bad?

As for funds, how much would it cost to hire good actors and a DP for a short? Would say 10K USD not be enough, I am guessing?

You can't afford to be that limited by your actors availability, your film making skills won't progress,

The grading in your film varies, the skill is in deciding on a look and keeping to it, That's what gets DPs hired, being able to maintain the look throughout a film.

The costs can vary, but usually actors will work for the union minimums on shorts. The DP may strike a deal on a short, you need to discuss it. Depending on the schedule and cast size, you should get away with that figure,

How slow you go depends on the content and if the audience is going to invest in your characters. Feature films still have slow scenes, it's just you need the visual content, that allows you to hold their attention. Om your locations to date, it wouldn't hold, you need more intriguing locations. That scene is about waiting, so you expect it to be slow.

Oh okay thanks. If I can't afford to be limited by the actos ability, are you saying I should find a way to make the acting better, even if the actors ability are limited?

Also when it comes to grading, do you think perhaps it's a bad idea, to grade each scene differently? Like should a colorist color each scene differently, or should the just copy and paste the same grade over an entire movie for consitency, and not work on each scene differently at all?

Also I think one of the problems with the inconsistency was not just the color but maybe the lighting as well. I used halogens for the house scene, and kinos for the office scene. Halogen lighting is more harsh, where as kinos are more soft. But should I just use halogens for an entire movie, if that means the lighting type will be more consistent?

You're looking for rules again. You have to decide the look for the film and consistent, some scenes may be a bit more in shadow that others. There are books on doing this. There was no reason for your film to vary so much between scenes/

I said availability, but you need to also cast the best people you can find for each part.

This seems to be going over old ground again.

Oh okay sure. But if an actor is all of a sudden not available till later, but the other actor is not, should I cancel for another day, when they can both make it simultaneously then, and that will be better, rather than just wanting to shoot anyway?

As for the look, this is also why I want a better DP, because they will not know how to get a more consistent look that I want of course.

Ryan - are you in charge, or are they? I've worked with plent y of amateurs and when they want to be in something, they're often more punctual and reliable than the pros doing it for money, who are always on the clock. You tell them they have got the part and you demand what you need and get them to confirm. So you send them the details, you tell them you have arranged everything and if they let you down for anything other than a family bereavement you sack them and let everyone know they let everyone down badly.

Let me pose a question. Let us say I was an experienced DoP who knew their stuff. A very keen amateur director/producer was paying me a token fee, and I agreed to do it. I'd do all my own planning, and get ready for the shoot. Then the Director/Producer starts to suggest things. Daft things. Then he interferes and repeatedly asks everyones opinions on every tiny little detail. He seems to think he is the DoP. He wants me to follow his plan, but the plan is faulty. He won't listen, and repeatedly changes his mind. I have a decision to make. Try to do his crazy plans or walk. Me, I'd walk because doing things badly reflects on me.

Honestly - you rewrite everything because the actors are messing you about? You really must be short of talent in your area.

re: the colour. It looks grubby, not clean, and changes from shot to shot. Also - the person the wounded soul guy is talking to looks so ill? Pale, wan, tired? Was this intentional? He looks like he's been up for three nights solid and has bags under his eyes and in desperate need of a makeup person.

I don't think the comments were intended to say the camera is bad, but the camerawork is bad. Your camera is capable of decent images, but what we are seeing is far from the usual look of that camera (or any other, really) What did the actual clips look like before they were grunged up? It looks so much to me like an available light shoot. It's not about tungsten vs something else, but the look of the lighting. It looks like there either is NO movie lighting, or its been applied badly. You ask about grading. The grading needs to have consistent results, so if that means the same result but by different methods each scene that's fine. If we look at the movie we have, the problem seems to be that there is no overall 'feel' just lots of different tweaking. I CANNOT ever be a colourist or do proper grading because it requires subtlety and not the hamfisted approach I am capable of, and of course it needs calibrated monitors so that the subtle stuff can be seen and tweaked.

If I can't afford to be limited by the actors ability, are you saying I should find a way to make the acting better, even if the actors ability are limited?

That is NOT what he's saying. You don't have the ability to make their acting better because they simply are not actors. However, as Director, you can try your hardest to get the best out of them, but my understanding is you do not have the skills to do that. You read people in person and on here extremely badly. You misinterpret so much, yet the rest of use are now so good at reading you, we often answer the question you meant to ask, but didn't - have you noticed this. Every time you say "are you saying" we really aren't. You have put yourself in the position of needing to really understand people and what they do and what they need, even if they say the opposite - and you struggle so much. I had a friend similar to you, and he'd say "Let's do it one more time" and people would mutter "yep - right!" meaning NO NO NO, but he'd take their response as an affirmative and never understood why what followed was always terrible.

If you MUST use your actors club, because that's what it is, they're just a bunch of keen amateurs, and some I suspect not even that keen if they let you down - then you should write the parts for them. Some should have the minimum given to them. If your casting is deciding which of the six get the six parts, not deciding which 6 out of 20 get the role - then some casting choices seem a bit odd. The secretary person near the beginning seemed quite good - why doesn't she get a better role? The nasty scene never the end seemed to be a bit strangely put together. At the very end, when the girl was stabbed - the thing she was stabbed with was not shown properly to the audience, so it didn't have the same visual impact, the actual stabbing shot was OK, but what was it done with? I have no idea without going back. The other thing was the action on the bed. The angles didn't match. I mean the male to female angles. The scene being very Sharon Stoneish was so clearly simulated because physically they were in the wrong positions, unlike Sharone Stone's version. Clearly difficult to direct, but the kind of shot where everyone could say no - that doesn't look real.

Are we right that the character I thought needed some makeup was you? If so, that could also explain why some of those scenes didn;t work - you were too busy acting to see what the camera people were shooting?

Im pretty sure Ryan was the lead, yes. He’s credited in the cast and said he only operates on the opening location shot.

I have a friend whose brain has been overrun with cooties. She needs surgery to remove them. We can't afford to hire a surgeon and nurses, and we don't have a contract with the hospital so we can't use a real operating room; we need to do it at home. Please tell me how to hold the scalpel (what is a scalpel?). And sutures? No, we don't have ten dollars to buy sutures, we'll just hope the patient will assume there are sutures. Where can I find some volunteer nurses? And what should I tell them to do? Oh, we need an anesthetist. But nobody I know is willing to do that for free. So I'm going to do that too, at the same time that I'm performing the surgery. Darn, one of the nurses couldn't make it today, so I will also do that, but just temporarily. Of course I don't have much experience being a nurse, so some of my actions will be jerky (I hope the patient won't notice). Oh, wait, we're doing this at home ... should I have someone boil some water and get some clean towels? No, never mind, that's for delivering a baby. Darn, the patient died. Are you saying I should tell the nurses to be better nurses?

Oh, OK ... the guys on the forum tell me I should start by practicing on hangnails and splinters. But those don't interest me so I will steer the conversation away from short operations. I have some other major operations lined up that I think will be more interesting. Where can I get some better nurses? Etc. etc.

Am I being too extreme, or is this a reasonable analogy?

Ryan - are you in charge, or are they? I've worked with plent y of amateurs and when they want to be in something, they're often more punctual and reliable than the pros doing it for money, who are always on the clock. You tell them they have got the part and you demand what you need and get them to confirm. So you send them the details, you tell them you have arranged everything and if they let you down for anything other than a family bereavement you sack them and let everyone know they let everyone down badly.

Let me pose a question. Let us say I was an experienced DoP who knew their stuff. A very keen amateur director/producer was paying me a token fee, and I agreed to do it. I'd do all my own planning, and get ready for the shoot. Then the Director/Producer starts to suggest things. Daft things. Then he interferes and repeatedly asks everyones opinions on every tiny little detail. He seems to think he is the DoP. He wants me to follow his plan, but the plan is faulty. He won't listen, and repeatedly changes his mind. I have a decision to make. Try to do his crazy plans or walk. Me, I'd walk because doing things badly reflects on me.

Honestly - you rewrite everything because the actors are messing you about? You really must be short of talent in your area.

re: the colour. It looks grubby, not clean, and changes from shot to shot. Also - the person the wounded soul guy is talking to looks so ill? Pale, wan, tired? Was this intentional? He looks like he's been up for three nights solid and has bags under his eyes and in desperate need of a makeup person.

I don't think the comments were intended to say the camera is bad, but the camerawork is bad. Your camera is capable of decent images, but what we are seeing is far from the usual look of that camera (or any other, really) What did the actual clips look like before they were grunged up? It looks so much to me like an available light shoot. It's not about tungsten vs something else, but the look of the lighting. It looks like there either is NO movie lighting, or its been applied badly. You ask about grading. The grading needs to have consistent results, so if that means the same result but by different methods each scene that's fine. If we look at the movie we have, the problem seems to be that there is no overall 'feel' just lots of different tweaking. I CANNOT ever be a colourist or do proper grading because it requires subtlety and not the hamfisted approach I am capable of, and of course it needs calibrated monitors so that the subtle stuff can be seen and tweaked.


That is NOT what he's saying. You don't have the ability to make their acting better because they simply are not actors. However, as Director, you can try your hardest to get the best out of them, but my understanding is you do not have the skills to do that. You read people in person and on here extremely badly. You misinterpret so much, yet the rest of use are now so good at reading you, we often answer the question you meant to ask, but didn't - have you noticed this. Every time you say "are you saying" we really aren't. You have put yourself in the position of needing to really understand people and what they do and what they need, even if they say the opposite - and you struggle so much. I had a friend similar to you, and he'd say "Let's do it one more time" and people would mutter "yep - right!" meaning NO NO NO, but he'd take their response as an affirmative and never understood why what followed was always terrible.

If you MUST use your actors club, because that's what it is, they're just a bunch of keen amateurs, and some I suspect not even that keen if they let you down - then you should write the parts for them. Some should have the minimum given to them. If your casting is deciding which of the six get the six parts, not deciding which 6 out of 20 get the role - then some casting choices seem a bit odd. The secretary person near the beginning seemed quite good - why doesn't she get a better role? The nasty scene never the end seemed to be a bit strangely put together. At the very end, when the girl was stabbed - the thing she was stabbed with was not shown properly to the audience, so it didn't have the same visual impact, the actual stabbing shot was OK, but what was it done with? I have no idea without going back. The other thing was the action on the bed. The angles didn't match. I mean the male to female angles. The scene being very Sharon Stoneish was so clearly simulated because physically they were in the wrong positions, unlike Sharone Stone's version. Clearly difficult to direct, but the kind of shot where everyone could say no - that doesn't look real.

Are we right that the character I thought needed some makeup was you? If so, that could also explain why some of those scenes didn;t work - you were too busy acting to see what the camera people were shooting?

Oh well as far as actors not being available, it actually was because of two bereavemeants that came up. So I felt I had to shoot around their absences while they tended to their bereavements.

Yes I did step in the acting role, because the role needed to be filled. However, as for how I was suppose to look, pale and in need of sleep, that was intentional because the character was suppose to be going through a really traumatized time because of his ordeal, but in the future, how do I make the audience tell the difference between someone looking ill and tired intentionally vs. unintentionally?

And I don't have to keep using the same actors, it's just that I was told to keep making no budget shorts on here before, but no budget, means bad acting and bad cinematography. So is it still worth making no budget shorts, if that is what the result will be instead of trying to pay for better acting and cinematography?

" but no budget, means bad acting and bad cinematography"

No it doesn't, just you (I don't now about your associates) don't seem to have the skills and the ability to attract the people or make full use of what's available. I've seen films made by 18 year old media students which are way better than your films and that includes the acting and the cinematography,

No one gets paid on those and the students do the camerawork. The quality has nothing to do with the budget, if you've got the skills you can do amazing stuff with whats available today in the lower budget range and there's high end software available either for very little or free.

Oh okay. Perhaps the students are finding better actors and I need to do the same, or I can look in different places.

Or are they getting good performances out of non-actors? Because I would rather try to find actual actors rather than try to direct non-actors.

Student films get their actors from various sources.

Oh okay. Well that is also one of the reasons I have not made as many short films is because I need to find better actors, and I am often not satisfied with the auditions, and don't think it will work.

Assuming it's a reasonable size university, the film students can easily get actors from the theatre department. They might get their composers from the music department, as well ... I never thought about that.

I have the impression there are simply no resources (actors, DPs etc) in Saskatoon where Ryan lives, OR there are and theyve all realized over time to avoid his projects.

I can keep looking but the short film we were just talking about I used actors from the University though. But I can keep looking. I think I can also bring in actors from other cities as well that are not too far away perhaps. As for a composer, I was thinking of utilizing one I worked with before for future projects, unless I should look for different ones..

You say they were from the university (which is fairly big, 25,000 students). Were they students from the theatre department? Or just some random people from the university? The theatre students I've seen (not in Saskatoon, obviously) were a lot better than that. Of course maybe the best ones aren't interested for some reason.

A couple of them were from the theater department, the rest were not but just saw my advertisements and applied.

However, I was told that the acting was too theatrical, or too stage-ish, so is it wise to use theater actors if the they come off as too from the stage compared to experienced in acting in front of a camera?

But I feel I should look in other cities and just bring them in for the weekends, on their days off perhaps, if that's better, rather than relying on just my own city only.

But aside from the acting and cinematography, what about the editing and sound for example? Could I do any improving there? I didn't do the mixing, but did recorded the production audio.

You can use theatre actors, but you do need to take the time during your shoot to tone down their performances. You may have to train them for film, if you're prepared to do that you can get good performances from them

However, you can't film a page every 30 mins with them while doing this, which also probably explains why you're currently getting such poor performances.

Regarding editing, you tend to over cut as if you feel every action needs a cut.

Tell you what Ryan, If you produce something good, I'll do the music for you. Here's something I did for an aborted project from a couple of years ago. The funding dried up so it went nowhere, so the clip is a re-edit of the opening.

I'm serious. If you produce something that is good, I'll do it for you, but only if it's not cringeworthy.

timescape titles with audio on Vimeo

just curious, Ryan, do you actually have a film in mind? Or are you just getting ready for when you do?

Going back through x years of threads on various forums, Ryan currently has a crime thriller feature film as a pet project. This has been on going for a while - nothing new about that feature projects tend to take years to get off the ground

Tell you what Ryan, If you produce something good, I'll do the music for you. Here's something I did for an aborted project from a couple of years ago. The funding dried up so it went nowhere, so the clip is a re-edit of the opening.

I'm serious. If you produce something that is good, I'll do it for you, but only if it's not cringeworthy.

timescape titles with audio on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/261473416)

Oh okay thanks for offering, that is good music! Are you usually a composer?

You can use theatre actors, but you do need to take the time during your shoot to tone down their performances. You may have to train them for film, if you're prepared to do that you can get good performances from them

However, you can't film a page every 30 mins with them while doing this, which also probably explains why you're currently getting such poor performances.

Regarding editing, you tend to over cut as if you feel every action needs a cut.

When you say I overcut do you mean during the dialog, or mainly during the action, or both? During the fight scene for example, I didn't want to ask the actors to do a lot in a long take, but should I have asked them to do more long takes?

As for a page every 30 minutes being too fast, a lot of times, the people are only available to shoot for about 6-8 hours a day, as well as the locations only available for that long as well. So I feel the longer it takes to get done, the more something goes wrong such as an actor getting a hair cut, or a location changing between shoot days, which has happened before... What would be a reasonable amount of time to shoot a page for example if I want good performances?

You over cut during dialogue.

The 30 mins a page is a real limitation on the quality of your films. Don't use locations that you can't access for long enough to shoot the scenes. 10 to 12 hours is pretty standard for a day's filming. That will be even more vital if you plan to make a feature film in a week, when 14 hour or longer days is extremely likely.

There really is no answer that will work for you Ryan - I know you need a figure, but it always depends. You can get a figure once you have finished a p0roject and can look back and see how long each scene took, and how that differed from your predictions. Next time you will be closer because the problems that happened first time will be in your head.

In the pro world, the contract always includes a clause that prevents actors changing their appearance. No beards to be shaved, no hair colour changes etc etc. Even moustaches get detailed. Younger people with designer stubble seem incapable of keeping it the same - a real pain. You really have to look at the script and imagine the things that will happen, and you will get it wrong, but you get more accurate each time.

I have had to have words with a Director, quietly, because an actor I have worked with before is going to need many hours of coaching to get a scene right, and the Director allowed just two hours of mixed rehearsing for that scene with the expectation the actor could go away and work on it himself - I knew he needed constant guidance. From a script I guess it will take maybe 90 minutes till its of performance standard, and we're there in 30 minutes when all the actors have really learned the script. Others will hardly have scanned it and slow the process down dreadfully. That is how it is.

On the music front - it's like everything else in my career. I can do most things averagely, and I excel at none, but that's me. If I need excellence I pay somebody else who can do it better, faster and with less grief. However, when the phone rings I usually say yes, then work out how to do what I have agreed. Ten years ago somebody asked me to join a tribute band, I said yes. I didn't tell them I had never sung and played bass at the same time, ever. I blagged it. I don't get stage fright or get stressed. Two weeks later I had learned the songs and was out on stage in front of 5000 in a festival. I remember looking at the audience and thinking how odd this was. I spent hours learning the songs, but I knew in my head I could do it!