Jim Keller

Switching to my "professional actor" hat briefly, I don't feel that the actors are more important than the other aspects of filmmaking. If I give an amazing performance that is underexposed, on an inappropriate set, with lousy sound, badly costumed, mis-edited, poorly lit, with a huge scratch running across my face -- well, I'm not winning any Oscars. I would much rather have to self-direct and know everything else is going to be done competently. But, back as a producer-director, the thing I don't like about Weston's book is that she seems to think that all actors work the same way, and the way she teaches is used by a distinct minority of professional actors. If you want to know how professional actors work, you're much better picking up an acting textbook -- or, rather, several dozen, representing the various schools of thought -- than a directing textbook. Just like there's a dozen ways the art department may build a platform, there's a number of ways for an actor to get to get to the end result you need. Your actor may use Method, Chekhov, Meisner, Alexander, Suzuki, Technical, etc. Any book that tries to tell you "how actors work" is either going to be so broad as to be useless, or miss out on the explaining the majority of actors you will encounter in your career. Weston also believes in holding the actors hands rather than just saying what end result you need. A professional actor is trained to show up on time, deliver the performance as quickly and consistently as possible based on "result-oriented direction," and get out of the way of the other departments, allowing the director to focus on the entirety of the production. It's drilled into us over and over again that at several thousand dollars per minute of production time, the director simply can't take the time to walk us through things. So when a director declines to say what end result they're after and instead fishes around for personal metaphors, the actor either feels like the director is an idiot, or feels that the director thinks they can't act. Not a good relationship to have with your cast. This book is probably excellent if you're working with students all trained in the same facility using the techniques she believes all actors use who still need the handholding, but, really, on a professional set, where time is money your best bet is to break her cardinal rule and give result-oriented direction, and then only spend the time getting "actory" when the actor is having trouble.

Hmm. Looks like you need to be a member to download it off the website. ::sigh:: How useful... It's 2MB. Does anyone know if there's a way to post it here? If not, they were happy to send me a copy in the mail when I was prepping a feature 10 years back. They may still be willing to do so.

You might try the music schools.

You'll also have to direct an art department, an editor, a gaffer, a sound recording engineer, etc. You need to know enough about all aspects of filmmaking to clearly communicate your needs. But that doesn't mean you need the skill set to do their jobs in their stead. The best filmmakers surround themselves with good people, share the vision of the picture, and then trust them to bring that vision to life.

All the modified theatrical contracts (Low Budget, Ultra Low Budget, Modified Low Budget, etc.) refer to the Codified Basic Agreement. The other agreements were considered variations on the basic agreement, and therefore are only a couple of pages long instead of several hundred. Discussions about residuals are sprinkled throughout that document, beginning in section 5 (page 8) and are emphasized in section 6 (page 30). I've never dealt with theatrical residuals, but glancing at the contract it appears that it's a flat rate based on your gross (which, presumably, SAG breaks up amongst your cast and itself). I'd suggest checking with SAG to be sure, however.

I'm flying on memory here, but I think the old Victors took standard c-mount lenses. Never actually gotten my hands on one myself. My collection is mostly B&H...

The short answer is that it's complicated and you should read the specific contract you're working under very carefully, but in general the percentage number given is the percentage of the actor's original salary for the role.

I'm going to disagree about Weston's Directing Actors. I've found directors who attempt to use her techniques for directing actors to just annoy professionals and befuddle amateurs. I have not read Director's Intuition.

Sadly, the line was enclosed into the walls and floors before I joined the church...

The good news about editing on an Avid and finishing to DVD is that you'll have the opportunity to play with a lot of different filters to try different color corrections, contrast and gamma settings, etc., to see if you can get the effect you want, as long as you start with a clean, well-shot image.

I'm certainly no expert, but I've always felt that trends in color timing (and printing in general) are a huge part of what gives films a certain "quality" by decade. The same negative will give you very different looks based on how you print it...

You're assuming that this isn't all because He hates us... :) That sounds like a great troubleshooting program. I'll bring my voltmeter to church on Sunday. Thanks!

If there's pay, it'll be much easier to get good people, even non-union (though non-union does seriously limit your talent pool in this town). Also remember that if you can give the CD some money (even just a small honorarium) they'll be much more able to help, because "free" projects are always done on an "as I have time/inclination" basis, and the good CDs don't have downtime for long... Good luck!

What sort of project? What sort of budget? For bigger budgets, I've used the folks at Ulrich/Dawson/Kritzer (specifically Andy Henry) with great success. 818-623-1818. 4705 Laurel Canyon Blvd. Suite 410 Valley Village, CA 91607. They're a VERY busy office, though, so they pick and choose their projects. For smaller budgets, Bonnie Gillespie is very good, and willing to work at a steep discount if it's a genuinely tiny budget and a project she believes in. http://cricketfeet.com/casting/ For zero-budget, I recommend posting a breakdown to your fellow filmmakers saying "does anyone know a great actor who fits this who's willing to work for copy/meals?" I'm sure I'm not the only one who keeps files. (Be sure to include union status when asking.)

OK, this doesn't actually qualify as "...for Film and Video" but I'm hoping someone here may have some clue what's causing this. We have a sound system installed in our church, with drops at various key locations (pulpit, lectern, etc.) all running (under floors, in walls, etc.) to a sound board at the back of the church, similar to what you'd have in a live theatre. Well, one of the lines is giving us a lot of trouble. We've used two different microphones and run it to two different channels on the board, so the problem is clearly in the line. The problem has only occurred with phantom-powered mics (we don't own any that don't require phantom). Basically, when we first plug the mic in, it works fine. Then, slowly, and at an unpredictable rate, it loses sensitivity, until it picks up nothing at all. If we yank the line out of the board and plug it back in, the sensitivity always comes right back (with requisite loud pop if we've forgotten to kill it from the mix). We're needing to do this 1-4 times per service on average (though occasionally we make it through a lengthy service without it occurring at all). Since it's a gradual signal loss and always returns reliably by unplugging and re-plugging the line, it doesn't seem to my admittedly inexpert sensibilities like a short in the line. There does not seem to be a correlation to the signal loss and the weather. There isn't a rodent problem (though there is a termite issue currently, but not near the run). There is more than one plug associated with each line, but we have not been able to test whether it occurs in all of them or only the one we use every week (because it won't do it at all when we're testing it, only during services). We have considered the possibility that God hates us, but would prefer to find a technological cause for the problem. :) Has anyone ever seen anything like this? Anyone have any ideas what might be causing it or what else we should test? Obviously, if we can fix it without ripping up walls and floors to run a new line, that would make us much, much happier. Thanks!

As a general rule, you should only use a parenthetical if two possible interpretations of a line are possible, and it's important for the story that only one of them be used. So, "looking down" is a fine parenthetical if it's important to the story that this character is not making eye contact. If it's in there just because it's what you see in your head, you're guilty of what we call "directing on paper" and you should take it out. That level of detail is very appropriate for prose, but if you give your actors that level of detail they will either ignore it (and therefore probably miss the things that truly are important) or follow them and deliver a mechanical performance.

Oi... :rolleyes:

Personally, I regard 16mm to be mostly a "learning" medium at this point. True, with a super-16 modification, it's possible to do feature and HD-television work with 16mm, but you're going to need to do some sort of a bump at some point to make that happen. But if you're doing your first shorts, love doing MOS work, want to shoot film for the look but will be mastering standard-def, etc., an old Arri is like a tank.

Heck, if producers want to waste their money on garbage no one wants to see, I'm happy for everyone who's getting a paycheck from them. Sure beats not working.

Back in the day, Kodak had a student filmmaker's program that had materials available that were written on a high-school level...

I'd suggest giving the Biz Parentz website a thorough read. It's, obviously, geared for parents of child actors, but it's loaded with good information about the law, what is expected and acceptable, etc.

No, it's not assumed that they've granted their likeness rights simply because they performed on camera. It's not uncommon at all for actors to perform without signing a release precisely to prevent the film from being released. The most common reason for this is if it's a "home movie" or "test footage" that they're doing as a personal favor for a friend. I've heard through the grapevine that parts of Sin City were, in fact, shot this way as a proof of concept, and releases obtained retroactively when the producers decided they would like to include the proof-of-concept footage in the final film. It's also conceivable that the talent would agree to sign the release only after they've viewed the footage and are happy with it. This generally occurs when you've been hired by the talent to produce the film as a demo for them. And even if you tried to pretend you have a valid release from the talent, if you can't produce it it's still assumed that the likenesses aren't clear, because it's not unusual at all for releases to have riders on them (e.g. "no footage showing nudity may be used") that must be obeyed. I can't comment on the laws in Europe, but my understanding is that they're similar enough to American laws that I would be surprised if a European distributor would take the risk. A cease and desist letter in America could, in fact, stop up international distribution as well. I'm afraid that, as has been stated before, your options really are to either make up with your actors or to reshoot. FWIW, the threat of a reshoot is sometimes enough to convince talent to sign a release. The ego of the actor trumps personal issues nearly every time, and no actor likes to end up on the cutting room floor.

The IIb has found a new home (and is currently packing up its stuff for the big move). However, its little brother is still available.

My biggest advice for the "idea" phase of the music video is this: "Don't be literal." My second-biggest advice is: "Stick to the music." In other words, a music video that simply acts out the lyrics will just be boring. But a music video that has nothing to do with the song will leave people scratching their heads. They key things to do are to listen to the music and get a sense for its mood. Then read the lyrics and get a sense for what the song is about (in both the literal and the abstract sense). If the mood is "oppressive" and the song is about love, then a dark romantic fairy tale may be in order. If the mood is "chipper" and the song tells the story of a hooker who overdoses and dies, then something emphasizing the energy and charisma of the band will serve you better than a dramatization of the dying hooker. (Yes, these are both real examples.) Then, as folks above noted, do some storyboards, come up with concepts for your various locations (generally 3-5 for a typical music video), and shoot lots of coverage.

First, a bit of social advice for film school and your professional career. Using the word "gay" as an insult is not acceptable any more. You will meet a lot of gay people in this industry, and it's not "just a word." Besides, there are much better insults available for Macs. :) I've found that I haven't had any serious problems with Macintosh compatibility since we started transitioning to Macintels about a year ago. We had more issues with our older Mac software (Cleaner being the biggest offender) than any of the PC applications we've attempted to use. That said, there are a few PC applications that simply will not work in Boot Camp, and may not work even in a dual-boot situation. AutoCAD is one of the more notorious (though we use VectorWorks, so we've never wrestled with it directly). If you're a hardcore gamer, you may find that the required hardware isn't available for the Mac. The publishers of these software packages and games will tell you if you ask if it won't work on a Mac, so simply check for anything you think you may need to run. If you need something that doesn't work on a Mac, then Mac isn't the right choice, and you will have to live with the software that's available in PC land (which is generally OK, just not optimal). Otherwise, going with the industry standard is probably the better way to go. The other thing to consider before buying a laptop is that you're limiting your capture options somewhat. You can't put a native HD card in a laptop; Final Cut's HDV over firewire capture doesn't support timecode; P2 cards need to be transferred to a local hard drive for the footage to be accessible; etc. It will be fine for the typical film school curriculum, but if you're thinking of going professional with it, you'll probably need a desktop.