Jim Keller

For your first few productions, the unions will probably sign your production, not your company. For a company to become a signatory (where all your productions are automatically union), you need to have some sort of an established relationship with the unions (either by having worked with them before or by being a member of AMPTP). So go ahead and sign for this production if you need to. And even if SAG decides you need to be a signatory for all your productions, the worst it can do is "encourage" you to do so on other productions by listing you as an "unfair" (meaning non-signatory) producer and ordering its members not to work for you (which they're not supposed to do if you're non-union anyway).

There are a lot of very good effects houses around, and if you're not picky about how the shots get done (i.e. model vs. cgi vs. physical effect), the field becomes wide open. I have a friend at Rhythm & Hues ( http://www.rhythm.com/ ), which always does excellent work, with an emphasis on CGI and digital compositing, but they're very high end, and so it's hard to get on their schedule unless you can pay rate-card prices. About a decade ago I was prepping a feature which needed all the effects you list, and was planning to use Alterian ( http://www.alterianinc.com/ ), and was pleased with the work they do (mostly physical, which is how I wanted the effects done), and being less well-known they're more likely to cut you a deal. But for basic stuff like that, also don't discount the "little guy." One of the principals of HogoFilm ( http://www.hogofilm.com/ ) is in the office next door to me, and I'm always impressed at the quality effects he brings in for effectively no money. Bottom line, though, sit down with your storyboards, decide what you need, and then talk to lots of people. Your final decision about who to use should be based on who you're communicating well with and who understands your vision.

Yeah, in a market like Boston, I wouldn't bother working with SAG until you're at a level where you need to attract celebrity talent. Here in L.A., it can be challenging to get good people non-union.

Actually, now that you mention it, I've been happy with the Michael Wiese books across the board. The one on budgeting seriously saved my hide once.

Having workers comp insurance (or volunteer insurance if you qualify for it) is a good idea whether you're working with SAG or not. If someone is injured on your set and you're not insured, then YOU are liable for the damages personally. So I'd take that one out of the decision-making process. Really, the issue is whether or not you can get the performances you need out of non-union (or union but willing to risk it) actors. If not, then sign the contract. If you can find what you need non-union, then why do the paperwork?

You may also want to consider simply gelling a strobe light.

Fair enough. The important thing, of course, is to find a system that gets you, the director, what you want. Personally, as an actor, I'd rather be told "be funny" because then I bring an arsenal of funny choices to the table, most of which the director won't have thought of. Then we can play and decide what works and what doesn't together. If the director decides what will be funny and gives me that, it may or may not be the best choice I'm capable of.

I use the depth of field guides published by the ASC. Remember, though, that the "same" depth of field on different length lenses does, in fact, have a different look, so I suggest testing to be sure you like the result (you can do this on a still camera with the same size chip as your production camera / same size negative as your production camera) before doing the full production. You'll want to use more mist than you think you need, because the audience will perceive the mist as atmosphere first and mist second. Bear in mind that water doesn't miniaturize well, so, again, you'll want to run tests.

OK, let me start by getting the defensive part out of my system. I have read Stanislavski, and studied with Sharon Carnicke, the premier re-translator of his works into English. I have also read Chekhov, and studied with Mala Powers, a former student of Chekhov and (at the time) the executrix of his literary estate. I have also read Hagen, Meisner, Whelan, Mamet, and a host of others whose names aren't coming to me off the top of my head. In point of fact, I have a degree in exactly this subject. The job of the director is to unify the creative visions of all the different creative minds on a production into a single, coherent film. Hence my advice of "communicate what you need and then let them do it," rather than "tell them how to do their job." There's a big difference between me saying to a D.P., "I'm going for a very gritty, raw feeling, with lots of grain" versus me saying, "O.K., I want you to use Kodak 5294 and push process it two stops, and here are your lighting positions." DP #1 may agree that that's the best way to get a very gritty, raw feeling, but DP #2 may just be dumbfounded and/or insulted. It's the same with actors. Don't tell an actor how to act. Tell an actor what you need. If you find you've hired an amateur actor who can't do what you need, then you can decide if you have time to give acting lessons on set, but on a professional set, you're just wasting time if you start out that way.

I've actually done this (I work in a very small studio and it's an effective way to get a long shot). Be warned that Final Cut Pro is kind of buggy, and occasionally renders things a little strangely. (I didn't catch one mis-render before I posted the video here: check out the section at about 1:30.) You'll also need to be mindful that the XM2 does not shoot square pixels, so you'll want to keep an eye on FCP to make sure it's not distorting your talent when you do the rotation. (If it does, the answer is to render it out at 640x480, and then rotate the rendered footage). Check your work thoroughly, and this should work well for you, but bear in mind that real-time renders will be a thing of the past.

OK, the mystery deepens. We tested the lines with a volt meter, and sure enough, the resistance was lower than it should be. So yesterday I ran a test with the microphone instead plugged directly into a phantom power generator, and no phantom power coming down the line from the board. We still lost all sensitivity from the mic (which came back when we unplugged and re-plugged the mic from the phantom power supply, but not when we unplugged and re-plugged the mic line). I did manage to confirm, however, that the cable snake runs under the air conditioning ducts, and a few years back there was some sort of a condenser reversal that flooded everything under the ducts, so the lines were, in fact, saturated with water in the past. Any other thoughts before I tell them we need to pull a new snake?

I've only ever done miniature work for still photography, so I can't address the frame rate issues, but for still photography I'm not a fan of using shorter lenses for models. Audiences perceive the fisheye and it feels like a model. Rather, I prefer to use a longer lens with lots and lots of light (improving my depth of field by letting me use a smaller aperture).

To help the smoke scale better, you may want to try some tests using compressed air to "churn" the smoke (said with the caveat that I've never tried it).

I asked this question in a couple of other venues, and Judi Dench is coming up a lot...

As technology moves apace, don't underestimate the importance of online as your network of choice. I've both gotten work from and given work to people I only know online. As Google (and its competitors) makes it easier and easier for solo practitioners to compete with the big boys, there will be more and more opportunities to self-produce and to team up with those solo practitioners on projects. By being able to work the social side of the internet, you may be in a better position ten years from now than those who rely on hitting the bars every Friday and Saturday night.

The primary job of the leading man (and, to a lesser extent, the leading lady) in mass-market entertainment is to put butts in the seats. Not to give a good performance. Not to be right for the role. To put butts in the seats. That's why Jim Carrey is worth $25 million. The studio will sell $25 million worth of tickets just to people who will see the movie because he's in it. Jackie Chan has this effect on me. I don't need to know anything more than "It's a Jackie Chan film" to be talked into going to see it. But, as I intimated in the first sentence, this is widely regarded as the role of the leading man. The leading lady is regarded as the one who wins over the reluctant male companions. That's why Angelina Jolie is only worth $10 million. On her own, she'll only sell $10 million worth of tickets, while Brad Pitt will sell $20 million worth of tickets. Conventional wisdom says that it's OK for a man to like a leading man, but if he's going to see a movie for the leading lady, his female companion will be jealous and veto the moviegoing experience; contrariwise, it's OK for a woman to like a leading man, because that means her male companion will see a movie he enjoys instead of a so-called "chick flick." Now, I don't buy the conventional wisdom. Because, frankly, if I'm on the fence about a movie, but I see it's got Sigourney Weaver in it, that's enough to put me over the edge and get my butt in the seat. And she's only worth $2 million in the eyes of Hollywood. I think there are plenty of women that are box-office draws on their own, not as second-fiddle to a leading man. So I have a lazyweb question for everyone, in three parts: Are there any actresses out there that you will go see a movie just to see her? If so, which of them are (and look) over 40? Of those, how many aren't white?

First of all, it's great that you're thinking about these things, and taking steps to improve what you think might be shortcomings. There's always room for self-improvement, no matter how far you go. I myself am extremely shy by nature, and have similarly had to struggle to get out of my shell. As far as the answer to your specific question, it really comes down to, "it depends." On some sets, you'll be working with similarly soft-spoken individuals who will value and elicit your opinion. On others, you'll be working with type-A personalities who will roll right over someone who doesn't get in their face. A big part of what any producer looks for when hiring people is who will work well together, and if you can be up-front an honest about your personality type, you're already way ahead of most people in this town in terms of getting in with crews that you will "click" with. That said, where I suspect you'll have the hardest time is not on set, it will be finding work. Jobs in this town largely come through networking, socializing, and otherwise "getting yourself out there." You're going to need to work extra hard at that because of your shyness. When you reach a certain level, it won't matter, because people will know you and know your work. But getting there is going to take hard work, and probably the help of people around you who have a vested interest in seeing you succeed. Good luck!

Yes, and yes (assuming you have an agent that reps both directors and writers, with an interest in developing indie writer-directors). It really depends on the agent. But, in general, a body of work. Remember that a professional relationship with an agent is based on mutual benefit. The agent needs to know that she/he can make money off of you, and you need to know that you'll get more work through the agent than on your own. As a result -- in one of the sad ironies of the business -- most people don't find an agent until they're earning money without one. Here you've got it a bit easier. Writers' agents only need a finished killer screenplay that they can sell. To be honest, you'll likely have to let the first couple go without expecting to direct them yourself if you go this route, and then trade on your clout as a successful writer to insist on being allowed to direct one. Can't help here... Absolutely, but not to the exclusion of other avenues, if that makes sense. If you find doors are closed, don't beat your head against them. Keep working, keep building your experience and your name, and try again later. Eventually the doors will not only be open, the agents will by vying to drag you through them.

Excellent photography. But three important things: 1) Since you have a 414 phone number but are L.A.-based, you desperately need something on the front page that tells me that you're a local. An address (a P.O. box is fine) is plenty to do this. A phone number (even a forwarding line) with a local area code is good, too. Some sort of catchy homepage phrase is also good. But something. 2) Be sure to test the site on every possible browser (including Blackberry and iPhone), with and without Flash, JavaScript, etc. enabled. I don't need to be able to see the reel, but I must be able to get your contact information on the road or on a Luddite computer, or you'll miss out on opportunities. 3) Remember that your customers are looking for solutions to problems, not DPs. What is unique about you? What can you do better/faster/cheaper than most other DPs out there? If Figure that out and put it somewhere prominent. I've seen this done as part of a the bio ("a lifelong love of photography comes from an innate sense of light and color" or "after gaining a reputation for the ability to shoot with most any equipment"), as part of the homepage, as a separate section ("practical solutions for you"), but there needs to be something there that tells me that you are the solution to my problems. I'm on your website, I already need a DP, but I need to know, why you and not someone else? On the whole, very nice work.

I think breaking up your resume into different skillsets is a good idea (assuming you're still willing to take work in all those areas), but I'd suggest adding links to the resume to the appropriate representations of your work (especially for the photography). But having "DP/team" under "services" implies that you are a DP as well. That tab would probably work best as a subtab under the "director" heading (with a disclaimer that you can bring your own team with you, or work with the producer's). Also, for demonstrating that you're a good headshot photographer, you want pictures of many different actors, not just one (the very best of each actor, with different actors making up the different looks you can do), and I'd recommend either pulling down that section or quickly finding some additional actors to shoot (it's not hard to find actors willing to sign a release in exchange for a CD in this town). I would also put the professional shots above the personal shots unless you're trying to get a gallery show out of the personal stuff, in which case it should be labeled as "fine art." Your reel didn't grab me, but I'd never hire a director off a reel, so that may be my problem rather than the reel's. Much more useful to me is a mechanism by which I can get my hands on the complete film (even if it's just a "contact me for a DVD" button). When I bring in a director, I don't care how her/his stuff looks in their reel, I care what my finished product will look like, and your finished work is the best way for me to assess that. I appreciate that you kept it clean and simple, but be sure to test it on every browser you can get your hands on (most especially the Blackberry and the iPhone), and test it with Flash and JavaScript turned off. If it doesn't work when someone goes there, you're not getting the job. (I always tell people to keep their website to basic HTML or to ensure that there's an HTML-only version that is at most one click away at all times). But, overall, I think the site is strong visually. You just need to think about what it is you're selling (and what your customer is buying) and make that the focus. Remember, customers buy solutions to their problems, not products. What problem am I solving by hiring you? Put that up-front and in focus, and you'll get work.

With the caveat that I've never done television... A self-produced pilot alone isn't likely to sell. The networks order their pilots, and to get them to do that you'll need an agent repping you as a producer to get you in to pitch your series idea to them, and that's unlikely to happen until you've come up the ranks on other series. The odds of getting a network to even look at it are extremely low. However, a complete season is eminently sellable, either directly to a network exclusively or non-exclusively as a syndicated series. The customer can then view the entire package and decide if it's something they can sell enough advertising on to cover the purchase price. Since it's done (at least for season one), there's effectively no risk to them. With a pilot alone, there's just too many things that can go wrong for them to take the chance. You're an unknown quantity to them, and they don't know if you'll be able to deliver a full season on time and of the same (or better) quality as the pilot. My advice is if you can get the money for the first episode, try to get the money for 24.

Having once run a festival, I can state from experience that we looked much more favorably on shorter shorts, for the simple reason that there is only so much screening time available and we truly wanted to accept as many different pieces as possible. We could fit six five-minute shorts in the same amount of time as a 30-minute short, so a 30-minute short would've needed to truly blow us away to be accepted, but a two- or three-minute short just had to be favorably reviewed by a majority of screeners. I'm also of the opinion that learning to tell a story economically is essential to your development as a filmmaker, so the ultra-short is a great medium to explore. Now, that said, being a tiny festival, we accepted every feature that was submitted. The moral of the story, I guess, is that if you can't tell the story in under ten minutes, tell it in ninety. :)

Hollywood has always been cyclical. Independents make movies, and audiences respond to them. Conglomerates come up with a formula responding to what audiences want, forcing the indies to be absorbed or die. Conglomerates rake in gobs and gobs of money, but eventually lose all sense of what will appeal to an audience. Indies come out of nowhere and make movies that audiences respond to. Cycle begins all over again. Right now the studios are doing a great job of appealing to the masses. But it won't last. It never does. Creativity will return.

I drive past their headquarters on my daily commute, and it's alarming to see the lines of people trying to get to their money. This morning the police had to respond to one of the branches because a fight broke out over whether the people who had been in line since 1:30 AM or the people who were there yesterday and told to come back should get in first. So, yeah, I'm also in the "the economy's just that bad" camp myself at the moment.

I have no complaints with Apple computers running Final Cut Pro. If mobility is important, a MacBook Pro is a fine computer for DV work. If you can give up mobility, the Mac Pro is a very robust machine that is easy to upgrade and will give you much faster performance than a laptop.