Jim Keller

I'm still using my old Nikon D100. I've got megapixel envy, but thus far I haven't had any real need for more resolution, so I haven't upgraded. I'm more likely to buy the replacement on the desire for a bigger buffer than more resolution. As for lenses, I habitually shoot with an off-brand 35-80 (which I'm not thrilled with, but it's fine for snapshots) and a Nikkor AF 70-210 (which is amazing). But the beauty of the D-series is that the closet full of f-mount lenses my dad and I have acquired over the years fit it just fine, so whatever lens is right for what I'm going to shoot, I can usually find without any cost or trouble.

As a general rule, if you think you're ready to direct your first feature, you're not. If you think you're not, it's much more likely that you are. The key with any thing you're doing for the first time is to be honest with yourself and others about what you know and do not know. If you're not confident about the technical aspects of working on film, make sure you've got a good DP and a good crew you can trust. If you're not confident about working with professional actors, make sure you talk with everyone at callbacks to see who can be patient and communicative with you without trying to take the reigns. So, in short, the nerves are not only fine, they're appropriate. Use the threat of having to deliver on your promise to direct to keep making yourself more and more ready. And remember, that no matter how much you prepare, something will catch you off-guard.

I personally find it very useful to keep my daily schedules and daily reports in the archive, as I can refer back to them to know what went according to plan, what was easier than expected, and what surprised us. I don't keep it in the same file as the release forms, but after a few years the production is a blur, so I don't count on my memory to make sure I don't make the same mistakes twice.

It very much depends on the genre. In a genre where you want to create a sense of fast-moving action, two-page scenes are very typical , often shorter. A slower-paced family drama, scenes might run 5-6 pages on average (noting that to keep the flow from feeling monotonous, you would need to insert a lot of variety). I was once loosely affiliated with an independent feature that only had four scenes in its 118 pages. I'd suggest sitting down and timing scenes in several films you think work well (generally 1 page = 1 minute) and seeing how the structure affects the storytelling.

The original Planet of the Apes was released with a G! Try getting a movie with homicidal apes slaughtering and lobotomizing humans who've had a male nude scene earlier in the movie through the MPAA with less than an R today, and see how far you get... :)

You may want to try applying the appropriate color smoothing filter (for DV that's 4:1:1) before pulling the key (It's a video filter under the "keying" heading in the more recent versions). I've found it really does help smooth out the noise around the talent. Not 100%, of course, but it helps.

Is it safe to assume you're looking for citable sources? Obviously, the best education is to watch a lot of thrillers, and the directors' commentaries can be invaluable, but it's only a subset of professors who will allow you to cite such material in your bibliography. I'm not aware of good books specifically on this topic (though I have no doubt some exist), but in the short term I'd suggest doing a periodical literature search on the names of several well-known directors and cinematographers, as most of them have at least been interviewed if not directly written about their experiences. There should be at least several books' worth of material out there, if you've got access to a library with a good periodicals section.

I'm assuming your client is a fairly large organization, as requests for these types of coverage usually come from bigger clients. None of the insurance requests the client made are unusual when dealing with corporate lawyers. E&O policies are generally not very expensive, and serve to protect you individually should your company make a mistake. If you can afford it, I do recommend that you have one. But general liability is a must. Any company that can provide you with the standard production insurance should be able to provide you with the works. If you pop over to the Production Department forum, there's a thread there that I started in which someone recommended a couple of decent brokers when I inquired...

Ultimately, what gets shot is the director's call, and it's the job of the DP to realize what the director is going for. Where the line between "It's a two-shot, make it look good" and "This is the way I want you to shoot it" will vary from director to director. As will the amount of input the director wants from the DP. Really, the trick is to sit down and have a long conversation with the director before you take the job. If the director is going for a specific look and feel that you're not comfortable with, or the director's style of communication doesn't sit well with you, or if you vastly disagree about the interpretation of the script, then it's not going to be a good experience for either of you, and you should not take the job thinking otherwise. However, if you sit down and you're instantly feeding off each others' vision, then it doesn't matter how hands-on or hands-off the director is, you're going to feel invigorated by the creative synthesis you have together.

FWIW, I spent fifteen minutes trying to convince the folks who saw Pan's Labyrinth with me that it really was day-for-night. Those who are trained in cinematography can see it, but the typical audience member can't.

There's a subtle difference between a producer and a production services company. It sounds like you're finding the latter. A producer is the person who is responsible for all aspects of the production financially. If funding must be secured, it's a producer's job to do so. The producer is the one with the liability. The producer signs the checks (and therefore hires and fires the talent). When it comes time to do the physical production, a producer may very well hire a company like the ones you seem to have reached. Someone in that company will likely have the title "producer" too, because they will be responsible for the financial aspects of their contract work. (The equivalent on a feature would be a line producer or a unit production manager.) From the point of view of the person doing this job, they did secure the financing, because they scored the client, but they're also keenly aware that they're not free to do whatever they want to with the money. They must produce the production that client wants. These producers don't typically come up with an idea for a feature and then raise funds to produce it; instead, they realize the vision that a client (with money) comes to them with. If you hire one of these companies to do your production (be it a feature film or a video of your wedding), then you, as the client, are the really executive producer, because ultimately you're the one with the financial liability, and you're the one providing the money (whether your own or an investor's). Of course, since you're trying to raise money for a project you want to do, you're not ready for a production services company yet, nor would one be particularly useful to you. If you don't want to or can't raise funds yourself, then, yes, finding a producer who wants to do so is an approach you could take. However, that does mean surrendering some control, as the producer will be responsible for making sure your film can make its money back, and therefore (quite rightly) will have strong opinions about what you can and can't do. Producing it yourself is harder, but leaves you in control. As for how to get a producer, that's not a trivial undertaking, especially in a small market, where it's quite possible that there aren't any. And even here in L.A., they're hard to find. I often joke that you can always spot a producer because he refuses to tell you what he does for a living. :) With the caveat that fundraising is not my area of expertise (I'm much more of a "production services" type of producer), one crackpot idea you might want to try is to see if there's a local business school that you could network with. It's possible that someone there may want to take on the challenge of financing a film, either as a class project or just because they're entrepreneurial. A lot of the better business schools have regular haunts (typically a bar) where you might be able to meet people who are finance-minded. Similarly, getting involved in your local Chamber of Commerce might help, too. Most people there won't be interested in financing your feature, but you might be able to sell them on letting you do an industrial or commercial for their company (where you become a production services company and they become the client as above), which will help you build a reputation in the area, and make you attractive to venture capitalists. All that said, for young people ("young" defined as not having a long C.V., not by physical age), I honestly suggest producing yourself. First of all, it lets you retain control, and since a big part of your early work is establishing what you can do well, having that control lets you stay focuses on doing just that. Secondly, without a track record, producers aren't going to be nearly as interested in taking a risk on your project. Thirdly, it's a hell of a learning experience. Once you've gotten some stuff produced, and once people know you and your work, then producers will start finding you. Some producer will say, "Gee, I need to produce X... who's good at that? Oh, yeah, so-and-so..." and your phone will ring, and you won't believe your luck. But, as I've said before, there's no right answer, and there's no one way...

Thanks!

For the first time in several years, I find myself needing to buy an insurance policy (specifically an annual DICE type policy including workers' comp and hired auto), but my old broker appears to have left the business. Anyone have someone they can heartily recommend who can sell a policy in California? Thanks in advance!

I'd suggest picking up a copy of Film and Video Financing by Michael Wiese. It'll introduce you to the basics of acceptable business practices. It, like any book on the subject, frequently will leave you with more questions than answers, but the reason for that is that there's no one way to do it, and what works one time may not work a second time. The producers who are successful at putting together financing over careers are invariably very intelligent and adaptable people (despite what we think of them) who are capable of navigating uncharted waters on every project.

Hmm. I wonder if the the wait list is for the Epic is forming in its place...

Fascinating! Thank you!

I think that's part of it, except that we've been using matte paintings (first physical, then digital) for years with lighting that doesn't match. I've found it typically knocks me out of the moment, but when my mom watches the scene I have to spend 20 minutes explaining to her what the problem is...

Stage fright is not limited to those who are on stage. There's an old joke in theatre: Q: How do you identify the director on opening night? A: He's the one drunk in the bar across the street. The advice I'd give is the same as I'd give to anyone experiencing it: work through it. If you're prone to it, it never fully goes away (though you can mitigate it by building your confidence), but by understanding that it's just jitters you can make a decision about whether or not it negatively impacts your choice of career.

I'm curious if those who think CGI doesn't look real have the same response when looking at a Muppet. Some (such as Yoda) have been done very realistically, but others (such as Kermit) are clearly puppets, with visible stitching and control rods. And yet audiences reacted to Kermit, Fozzie, and Piggie as if they were real characters. If the Muppet can convince you that it's real within the context of the story, is the problem that these CGI characters are not yet well enough acted to be convincing?

I'm not actually anything close to an expert on the subject, but one reason that springs to mind for still photography is that the only way to do true single lens reflex is with a mirror that obstructs the imaging plane. Do digital video cameras still have a physical shutter?

I think it boils down to semantics... I don't consider price in the definition of "toy" vs. "professional" because I've seen some very expensive gear that doesn't produce quality that I would find acceptable in a professional setting, and would therefore consider the gear useful only as a "toy"; and I've seen some inexpensive "consumer" gear that, when used correctly, gives results that clients and audiences find perfectly acceptable. Granted, a cheap toy is likely to sell better than an expensive one, and is therefore more likely to be used, but what I get out of the gear is how I decide which semantics are best applied. The D90 is a unique situation simply because it's actually not a video camera. I consider it to be a worthwhile still camera (though I'd be more inclined to use a D300 myself, as I need the more rugged construction and bigger buffer), priced comparably to its competitors, that has a neat "bonus feature" that some may find useful in certain circumstances. Would I advise someone to buy it as their primary video camera? Absolutely not. That bonus feature is a "toy," as it's not up to professional standards. Would I tell someone looking for a still camera that they should consider the D90? Certainly. And if I need that hand-cranked look for a 720/24p video project, I may very well look around and see if anyone I know has a D90, because the effect it creates naturally due to its design flaws gives a very unique feel that would be difficult to produce any other way. Even though I wouldn't run out and buy the camera for its video capabilities, I'm happy to know what it can/can't do. I'm certainly not saying Nikon couldn't/shouldn't do better, but I don't fault them for hyping its video function any more than I fault other companies for attempting to sell their less-than-stellar products. That's why, ultimately, I don't like to invest in a camera (or any other gear) until I've assessed how it performs for myself, or at least seen credible results from impartial tests. The sales pitches will always be hype, and I really appreciate the people who share their real-world experiences with products here.

Oh, it is, but the pros also know when a toy is the right tool. I used to work with the wife of one of the top music producers in L.A., and at the time he was producing an entire project using toy musical instruments. Not because the sound they gave was good, but rather because it was right for what he was trying to do. In the hands of a lesser musician, this would be a horrible idea, but he was able to pull it off because he really, truly knew his stuff, as a professional should. By knowing what effect the camera gives you, when you've got a situation that calls for it, it's one more weapon in your arsenal. Not one you're likely to use often, mind you, but one that's good to have filed away in your mind, just in case.

I'm going to come down firmly in the "it depends" camp. For a direction like, "move your mark about six inches to your left" I have no compunction about screaming it out for all the world to hear. For something like, "as you're coming down the step we can see up your skirt," I'm going to keep it as private as possible. In between, you need to get a sense of both your set and your actors. Some actors worry that others think they're in trouble if you come over to talk to them privately, and are perfectly comfortable with everyone hearing their directions. Others are quite sensitive about everyone hearing what they're doing "wrong" and prefer the quiet consultation. It's a lot like parenting. There's no one right answer. It all depends on the individuals and the situation. And you won't get it right every time, but if you listen to your actors with the same intensity you expect them to listen to you with, you shouldn't have any trouble getting a sense of who they are and how to get the best results out of them.

Eh, the camera has its place in the food chain. But then again, I'm the kid who loves to shoot with toy cameras for the style they provide...

You've hit on the problem right there. Film is a high-risk/high-return venture, and therefore not appropriate on the bond market. Remember that even the lowest-rated bonds have a payback schedule, and regular payments are made on those bonds as long as the company is in existence. If the company fails, those bondholders are in line to receive proceeds from the liquidation sale. Film financing is much more akin to venture capital, where money is invested with no expectation of a regular repayment schedule, but where instead the venture capitalist receives a share of future profits. The greater risk is justified by the greater return if the company does well (they'll never make more on a bond than the bond's face value, even if the company recovers and goes gangbusters). While it's conceivable that you could issue some sort of corporate bond to finance a film, that would really only work if you're an old and established company like Universal. Even if you could pull that off, you're likely to get a better deal by just putting the cost of production on your credit cards.