Jake Vander Ark

Hey, thanks so much man. Really good stuff... you make it easier to understand than other websites. We might actually have a producer attached as of today, so maybe she will be able to help with this stuff as well. Keep in touch with your progress, and I'll do the same! Jake

My DP and I are actually in the exact same position as the 2 of you. We've been working on a project for 6 months now, and we've been seriously looking for a producer for the last 4 or so. It's very difficult to find someone willing to step on board this early in the game. We have commitments from at least 8 people who love the project and will help once we have the funds secured. None of them seem to know that, if they help us secure the funds, they WILL be the producer on our project. Once we have money, we'll have the pick of the litter. If you can't tell, I'm getting a little anxious :unsure: So the plan is to continue to move forward as much as possible with what we know how to do... we've shot listed, budgeted, and worked on the design... and it's all going into a website to help promote the project to producers and investors. Check it out! www.lighthousenights.com Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Finally, a question: How do I set up an LLC? Specifically, how do I set up the amount of "members"? I don't have any significant money to invest in my own project, and obviously I don't have any idea how many investors there may be total... so what number do I put there? I'm using legalzoom.com... is that cool? What kind of paperwork does it involve? As you can tell, I am completely lost when it comes to the business end of these things... that's why I need a producer! Any advice would be great! Thanks for the great post! Jake

I third that.

"What have you ever done?" = Big ego. Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

I guess the answer to all of our problems is to be as cool as this guy! Congrats on your success. I look forward to seeing your film in the theater.

I'm usually pretty calm when I'm on set... it's the night before that I go crazy. I always spend the first 3 hours in bed tossing, turning and thinking about the next day. Even when I'm "asleep", I have very realistic dreams that I'm at the location surrounded by problems. When I wake up in the morning, I have the feeling that I only got an hour of sleep. Pretty crazy, but that's part of the fun : )

? Are you kidding? That's a summary of the scene... not the screenplay. We know what he knows, because we just saw him shoot two teenagers in the chest. Now we're to the scene where he begins to regret his decision, and we get to watch him decide if he should go back to help them. It has been "committed to paper" for a year and a half now my friend. My question was regarding how to direct an actor making these choices without another actor to play off of. If you have a suggestion for me, wonderful. If not, quit posting. Square one: show some respect.

Whoa, whoa, the guy asked a simple question... "which is closer to reality", not, "which format has more integrity". To answer your question, aside from resolution which is closer to our eye (as Paul pointed out), I think video will get you what you want. You can use more practical light to expose an image, which will feel more realistic. Also, video usually has that documentary feel. Jake

Hey everyone. I just finished the website for the feature I'm trying to get off the ground. Any advice on how to make this more attractive to investors or producers would be greatly appreciated! Or any other advice in general would be very helpful. www.lighthousenights.com Thanks! Jake

Ok, you're right... I did enjoy the film. I laughed at George Clooney and Brad Pitt. So for that, I give it credit... it made me smile for 2 hours. However, you state the cardinal rule for bad acting... "the actors know they're stupid". Actors are supposed to identify with their characters fully... and that means that evil characters don't see themselves as evil, stupid characters don't see themselves as stupid, annoying characters... you get the idea. I didn't invent the "rules", but I can tell when they're working for me, and that's one I've always stuck with. An interviewer talking to Lee Marvin commented that it must be awful always playing bad people. Marvin responded "Me? I don't play bad people. I play people struggling to get through the day, doing the best they can with what life's given them. Others may think they're bad, but no. I never play bad people." My point isn't that Burn After Reading is not a decent movie to laugh at while you're watching, but because of this awareness on the part of the actors, it will never be considered a classic like Fargo... or any of Lee Marvin's films for that matter. Good discussion though... thanks.

That is a great way to put it, and some people consider that sloppy or easy filmmaking. It's easy to make somebody to laugh at... we get it all the time in recent Will Ferrell comedies... or on YouTube. It makes for better comedy, and a better film in general, when the viewer believes that the actor believes they're normal. Stupid people don't know they're stupid. Just seems a little low for the Coen's usual standards.

Unfortunately, I think that the actors failed to bring them to life in an honest way. With the exception of Richard Jenkins, Tilda Swinton, and J.K. Simmons, the rest of the cast are outside their characters, commenting on how stupid and ridiculous they are... even Frances McDormand, who brought so much honesty to the quirky Marge Gunderson in Fargo, is over-the-top and constantly commenting on her character.

Robert, Great post, seriously. You are exactly where I was about 2 and a half years ago. Unfortunately, I'm not a "rock star director" yet... not even close. But the feeling that you described does go away. It started to go away slowly after my first year in LA. I'm not sure where you're living, but things seem simultaneously easier and more difficult when you're completely outside of Hollywood. If you're not here, I would really recommend the move, or give up the idea of directing for a living. Obviously I can't tell you how to make it in the business, as I'm in the same boat as you are in that respect. But I can tell you how things became easier for me. I was lucky enough to be married to a girl who got accepted to the American Film Institute, and I worked as a 2nd AD and still photographer for free on 15 of their films. If you do a good job, and work for free, you should be able to go into any film school and get work. Because you're interested in visual mediums, I would recommend buying a decent digital SLR if you don't already have one, and get on set that way. Once you're on set and you see how others work, you will start to feel better and more confident. First of all, you'll discover that most people aren't that talented out here. You mentioned that it seems like everybody wants to direct. Well, it's true, but literally 9 out of 10 people will never come out to LA to seriously pursue a career, and the other 1 isn't any good. I know it sounds terrible to say, but this town is filled with losers. If you have a decent head on your shoulders, and work your ass off, you'll do fine. Second, by working on these smaller films, you WILL get friends in the areas that you are currently doing yourself. Please please check out my website (www.jakevanderark.com) and you will see that all of my films from the last 5 years were done in the same fashion you described. But after working on a few films as a 2nd AD, I met a great DP, a couple great editors, and some screenwriters. Already, I'm not working by myself anymore, and that helps the feeling a ton. Check out the black and white anamorphic stuff on my reel... that's the stuff I've been doing recently. Much much better than anything I did by myself at home. Also (wow this post is long, sorry), I just watched "After Death". I have reviewed a ton of short films before (mainly on triggerstreet.com) and I never lie... I think your visuals are very, very strong. The image of the soldiers coming into a nice dining room, the way the faces were cut down the middle before the shootings, and the end shot... seriously stunning. I would strongly recommend better actors, a better sound crew, and a screenwriter, but those will come after the move to LA I talked about : ) Anyway, I wouldn't tell you it was good if it wasn't. Keep posting and reading on this site, read a bunch of books about every area of filmmaking, move to LA, and you'll get there. Again, I'm probably not in a place to give advice, but I promise, keep pushing through, and it will get easier. Good luck, Jake (another quick note, don't credit yourself for everything on your films! people will know you did all the work without telling them.)

I would say if there is any way around it, cut the scenes out. Any method people will suggest will still look cheesy, even the one I'm offering. If you have to do it, you will absolutely need 2 of those red spinning lights that you could stick to your camera car that will be either in front of you or behind you. Have the camera attached to the car, and run in front of it... the lights will illuminate your face and it will look (a little bit) like you're chasing a fire truck. Make it all 1 shot without editing so that it looks more like an intentional, artistic choice rather than a lack of funds. Make sure you have 2 lights, far apart on the car... 1 light will NOT look believable! And obviously, the sound effect of a siren will help a lot as well. Good luck! Jake

As you can tell from my recent posts, I'm trying to get my career up and running. My wife finally graduated from the American Film Institute, and she already got a job at WB. I'm feeling a bit of a slacker sitting at home while she brings in the dough. I finished my website about a week ago, and I'm looking for any comments or suggestions on how to improve it... or better yet,... do I sell myself well? Would you hire me? What about the reel? I'm trying to be personable without sounding unprofessional, and it's a hard line to walk... does it work? Any other tips in general for others looking to cut a reel or build a website? Thanks in advance for all posts : ) It is www.jakevanderark.com Jake

Hey everybody, hope everybody is doing well in the film world today. I've got a few questions about agents, and any help would be greatly appreciated! 1. Are there agents for writer-directors? If I want to direct what I have written, can agents help in this area? 2. As a director, what do I need to get an agent? 3. As a writer, what do I need to get an agent? 4. Are there any stories about how you got an agent that would be helpful to the rest of us? 5. Is it worth pursuing? Thanks again for the help. These message boards are lifesavers.

I disagree. Yes, you need to direct an art department, editor, etc, but as a director, your job is first and foremost about directing the actors and getting the performances that are suitable for the story you're telling. All the other departments have multiple people looking out for each other. The actor only has the director, and "Directing Actors" gives many great tips on how to be on the same wavelength as the people you are trying to help.

Kavan, I haven't been able to find a website this good for directing. There isn't a lot of activity here, but I'm trying to change that! Jamie's suggestions are good... I would also STRONGLY recommend getting the "Hollywood Camera Work" DVD set. Watch it a few times and you'll get the "language of film" down pretty quickly. In fact, this could almost replace the book "Shot by Shot" that Jamie recommends. As for directing actors (the most important part), I would recommend both books by Judith Weston - "Director's Intuition" and "Directing Actors". Also, a HUGE inspiration for me has been a book called "Writing a Great Movie" by Jeff Kitchen. It looks like any other lame writing book, but his explanation of Drama vs mere story is invaluable stuff for a director to know. Once you plow through those, check out "New Cinematographers". It does tend to get pretty technical, but that is balanced out with tons of pictures... easy to learn from!

Yes this small film will say that it wants to be a human being. Can it change your life? Can it change the world? For me, yes. Art must have this emotional impact. Beautiful. But I don't know what it has to do with this post...

Hey all. I'm pretty sure the moderators frown on this, but I'm hoping to be forgiven so I can show you all some of my work. My great DP just posted our most recent project on these boards in "in production", and I wanted to link it in the directing section as well since this is where I hang out. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=31875 Thanks!

Great stuff Ger. I really really appreciate the links. First of all, I've never heard of "You the Living", but that has to be the funniest clip I've ever seen... 1 shot or not. The greatest point these clips proves is that you can tell a story with the way a shot is setup, instead of in editing. (I have nothing against editing, but I tend to think that people go a little over-kill on the coverage when they could simplify things with the camera). Tsai Ming Liang "what time is there" The 1 shots emphasizes the loneliness. Roy anderson "you the living" The 1 shots emphasize the humor. Bela Tarr "prologue - visions of europe" The 1 shots emphasize the mass of people. There are so many sad faces, and they just keep coming. These are all effects that would have been lost with coverage or over-editing. The style I'm considering for the potential feature is similar to the shot from "Stranger than Paradise", although I'm hoping to be a little more upbeat than Jarmusch.

Good advice. Unfortunately, in this case, practicality is almost as important as story... Story is always at the forefront of my mind, but I also have to consider what will be time-saving, hence the initial question. Here is another one that might be a little bit harder to accept as 1 shot and an insert, but I want to see what people think: INT. DELIGHT RESTAURANT - NIGHT Gabe sits alone at a table. He checks his watch: 8:40. He sighs and looks around the room. A couple sit together talking lovingly across a candle lit table. A WAITER approaches. WAITER Are you Gabe? GABE Yes? WAITER A young lady called this in a few moments ago... The waiter hands him a folded up piece of paper. Gabe unfolds it: ?Sorry Gabe. No?. WAITER (CONT?D) Can I get you anything? GABE Yeah, a bottle of your most expensive wine, please. WAITER I?ll need to see your ID. Gabe is distraught. He stands up and walks out of the restaurant. We start in a medium shot, Gabe looks at his watch, the waiter approaches and we see his waist on the left of the frame as Gabe looks up to him. He hands him the note. Insert of the note. Same shot, Gabe asks for wine, he's denied, and he stands up to leave. The camera pans with him out the door. The shot is about Gabe, and his reaction to the waiter, the note, and the refusal of the wine. Do we need a master, or a reverse of the waiter? I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible, while remaining faithful to the story.

Since I've been getting so many great responses, I'll keep going. I've been thinking a lot about the advantages and disadvantages of shooting very specific shots, while using minimal traditional coverage for many scenes in my "theoretical feature". Please correct me if I'm wrong: If you can cover simple, NON-DIALOGUE scenes in 1 shot, you can avoid all of the problems associated with continuity, the line, the eye-lines, etc... and you can also cut lighting time down significantly if you limit the number of shots per scene. It's great when you can eliminate these hassles with a low-budget film. This may be obvious and I'm over-thinking it, but I've been on so many sets where they shoot very simple scenes from literally 5 different angles (and frequently only end up using 1 in the final cut). Perhaps it is demanded by the editor? Is there another reason for doing this that I'm missing? Before I get a plethora of hate-responses telling me I need coverage, I would definitely cover some of the more traditional dialogue sequences, as well as the intense, climactic moments where we have numerous beats that need to be very clear. These are sequences where we will tell the story with the editing... the other sequences I'm referring to, the story will be told in the shot. For example: INT. HALLWAY Gabe walks to the closed, glowing door of his parents den, and knocks. GABE Ma? Dad? I'll be out tonight. No response. He walks back down the hallway and exits. My plan (suggested by my DP) is to keep this as 1 simple tripod shot with Gabe entering from a door on the left, walking down to the glowing den at the end of the hall, "I'll be out tonight", and walking back toward the camera, leaving frame on the right. We don't cut to his hand knocking, no reaction to the fact that his parents aren't responding, etc. Is there anything wrong with this? Should there be inserts and extra shots for this sort of scene? Any other general thoughts on over-using coverage? What about bad experiences with 1-shots? I'll send another example if people seem interested in this topic...

Thanks for all the good info Jim. These boards are amazing.

Jim, Your initial "don'ts" are all givens... but all of your points were very helpful. The point about the sister is interesting... I can definitely see that as the sort of relationship that you would want with an actress. Is a callback for a "body check" standard procedure? I'm assuming it is because you talk about it, but I haven't heard about it before. Also a good point about the chemistry with other actors... I also agree with Chris about waiting until the end, but only assuming that everything you said in your post was true. However, if there was a hint of doubt it probably would make sense to shoot at the beginning... Any other suggestions? I'm posting these questions to get some conversations going in this pathetic graveyard of a "directors corner"... throw your thoughts up here!