william everett

I have a screenplay and locations all picked out, and I know what I want from actors - yet it seems "plunging" into a project is a mistake. Frankly, the technology jargon is a lot to swallow. I'm thinking of filming for a day, then process the film, go all through post production, etc, as if my two or three reels were the finished product. Is that a sound idea?

I am going to shoot a scene in a small, dark room, with a dark door that opens to the outside. The door is a conventional swinging door, swinging towards the camera. The room is a basement, so the door opens, there are a few gray steps going up, and then out to a "backyard." I want the actress to be afraid of what is behind the door, then relieved when she walks outside to a pleasant scene. I am using 16mm color film. What kind of film or filters would I use to capture both the dark room and the light coming in when the door opens - so the film is not too dark at the beginning, or too light at the end? Can i have the camera follow the actress outside in one shot, so it begins with the dark room, then the flooding light, then a progression to a green yard outdoors?

I was about to write "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" until the person above me wrote "Lost in Translation." Now it's a tie.

Dead men walking away from the camera, and looking back at the audience, from "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930?)

why do I need it? (I shoot a 35mm film, splice the scenes together, have the negative printed, then print a positive, and I'm done, yes?)

I want to do a silent film (so no sound crew) extended over a year, where I can shoot the same tree in winter, spring, summer, and fall, with actors around it, so it will show the passage of time. There is a wall directly behind the tree - it is set in an old prison - and the shots could be thirty seconds worth of final film for each "season." Most of the filming will be in summer, yet I want those shots of the tree to signify the seasons. What kind of crew would i need for this idea? Again, there is no dialogue, and will be shot outdoors. failing that, is there another way to show the passing seasons? Thanks Sorry, I should have added it is 35mm color

Okay, let me switch gears a little. Filmmaking has the obvious hurdles: technical knowledge, labor laws, contracts, insurance, buying or renting equipment, hiring crew and actors, and so on, which all adds up to an intimidating facade. We hear stories all the time of scenes that required ten takes, or a scene lasting forty seconds on film that took two days to shoot. You all know this better than I. The beginning filmmaker (Dir, DP, ADP, whoever) can spend years studying, and apprenticing, and waiting, for the chance to someday put their stamp on a film that will last two hours. So I give you a different scenario: a director buys five hours worth of film, hires a crew, actors, etc., and shoots in two or three days. He shoots his most important scenes first, then the rest of his story with what is left. He pays for five hours worth of film developing and editing, and pieces together whatever he has into a ninety minute finished product. It is not a masterpiece, not for nationwide release, but he has a feature film under his belt. And he has not gone bankrupt. Is such a scenario out of the question?.

Referring to a film shoot, many people talk about a 6:1 ratio or 10:1 ratio, meaning you will shoot ten minutes of film for every one minute of finished product. The actors will mess up a line, or there will be a plane flying overhead, etc. Is it really so hard to have a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio - that is, you want a shot of a man running down an alley at night, so you set up, have him run, and take whatever happens on the first shot. If you film a cityscape, the city isn't going to change in the next twenty minutes, so whatever you shoot first is going to look pretty much like what you shoot third. We're not talking about making Casablanca. It's just a film to learn the ropes, right?

Okay, let's try this again. I am shooting a silent film so it doesn't matter if the camera makes noise; is there a difference between an MOS camera and a regular camera? Is there an advantage, such as price or number of technicians needed....

On a related topic, is there such a thing as an MOS camera (35mm or 16mm) separate from a regular camera, or is basically every camera MOS?

Favorite black and white films, or favorite films BECAUSE they are in black and white? Important distinction. Anyone can say Citizen Kane, but that was important for other reasons than black and white. Perhaps you mean favorite SCENES in films because they look great in black and white...for instance, the end of "All Quiet on the Western Front" when the soldiers march away from the camera and quickly glance back at the audience - that would not have the same effect in color. The glitter of Ingrid Bergman's earrings in Casablanca stands out more than it would in color because you would be noticing makeup, the red of her lips, etc.

Luise Rainer, Joan Fontaine...?

A Peter Gabriel song is recent enough that you would have to get permission, and pay for it. Has to be. Might be easier to pick something else. I want to use classical music (several pieces from Vivaldi) but of course he has been dead for two hundred years, so I am going to get a local quartet to play the pieces. Still have to pay them, of course, but I won't be using a recording from an orchestra so i think (!) I will be safe.

I just watched "A Night at the Opera" (1935) with the Marx Brothers and the radiant Kitty Carlisle. Seventy years later she is still performing! Anyone else from the 30's still around?

I just saw "Paths of Glory," in which Kubrick went through 30 or 40 takes for a last meal scene - using freshly cooked chicken for each take - and Warren Beatty had dozens of takes for Maureen Stapleton giving a speech in the rain, for "Reds". On the other hand, Frank Sinatra apparently wanted one take for every scene he was in. Multiple takes bored him. Under what circumstances are more than a few takes necessary? Why can't I just shoot a scene once, turn the camera 90 degrees for a different backround, shoot another scene once, and turn the camera another 90 degrees for a third backround, and thus shoot three scenes in one take each? Change the clothes a bit, shave off a mustache, and it will appear that days or weeks have gone by in the twenty minutes it has taken to complete three scenes.

Actually, I didn't think of fire laws. It's a public museum so the idea of torches inside is probably nix right there. However, the scene would be set in ancient Troy so I want to have a realistic feel. A prisoner kidnapped and taken away by night, that sort of thing. David, do you mean a Zippo lighter? That's interesting!

What would be a proper film for shooting a scene at night, or in a dark room, lit with torches? (The scene is set in and near a stone prison)

very informative. thanks

I am twenty miles from Philadelphia. I want to shoot in October when the leaves are orange and yellow, etc. The phrase "A project this small doesn't need to be a union shoot" is a bit intimidating. I mean the word "need" is intimidating. Is there an unwritten cutoff between union and non-union gigs? Also, your reply seems to say I would approach IATSE for a camera operator instead of ASC, is that right? Of course I want to save money, but I also want to "do the right thing" professionally and not piss off important people. If I made some short films and then wanted to do a feature, I would need to be in people's good graces.

Say I want to make my first film, ten or twenty minutes long. I want to hire actors and an actress for a day or two, tops. Suppose I want to hire SAG actors, maybe even a A.S.C. member, for credibility. It is far fetched to appraoch SAG or ASC with such a proposal - hiring someone for day or two's shoot and that's it?

If short ends are less expensive than full cans or new film stock, it would seem obvious to buy up lots of short ends and use them for every reaction shot or short scene. Can someone explain why this may be a bad idea? And please forgive this most obvious of questions: if buying film at .15 or .25 a foot, how many feet of film is used in one minute of filming? That is, for 16 mm or 35 mm film. Thank you!

Thanks for the tip on Sidewalk Stories, which I will look for. Guy Maddin has interesting work, as well, yet I am thinking more of traditional narratives. Imagine: you are at a film shoot with no sound crew or sound equipment, and no need to mask backround noises like flying airplanes. The director can even talk to his actors during the shot. Without scripted lines to memorize, there can be no flubbing the take with a mispronounced word. Fewer crew members means less time tending to their concerns. A director would need fewer takes to get a scene, since there are fewer technical mistakes to overcome. In theory, many scenes can be done in one take. Am I off base with this scenario?

How about the Wicked Witch? Has anyone NOT said, once in their life, "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too!" or this one "Auntie Em! Auntie Em...."

I love the old silent films and would love to experiment with it - making shorts to get the feel and then creating a feature length silent film, in time. Does anyone make silent features - not ten minute student films to get a grade in a class, but full length silents for commercial distribution? Am I way off base thinking that a silent film would be much less expensive to make than a "talkie"?