joshua gallegos

I really wasn't expecting Atlanta, of all places why Atlanta? There's nothing but bushes in that city. It's not visually diverse like California which is why the film industry established itself in that location to begin with. I still think Los Angeles is the best place for me as all the rich film history and theaters are there. Downside is the smog, traffic, and notorious gangbangers... I suppose Austin, Texas is also a good choice.

How did you get started? How can someone chase work from production to production- seeing that it's all very sporadic.

I know many have posted this before, but I feel like I'm ready to make the commitment to start working in the business. I've felt for a long time that this is the only thing I want to do with my life and grow old doing it. I know the city is congested with thousands upon thousands of hopefuls and not everyone will make it, but I wanted to work as a PA and eventually get into the grip department and absorb true professional knowledge from other people. I've never been around a professional set before and I feel making short films on my own is the wrong way to keep making films because I truly don't know what I'm doing or how it works. I have some very basic understanding on the fundamentals of cinematography, editing, directing, producing. I currently have a second script on the top list on the Black List website- and I know how to break down a script, budget it, etc. So at the very least i could intern in up and coming production companies- which I've heard there are many that come and go- and maybe even write a straight to DVD film or a porno. I feel I could do something and perhaps LA is the place to begin my journey. I've failed many times before, and I am willing to fail many more times- I truly feel like I haven't been trying hard enough, I haven't even started trying- and I need a city where I can live and breathe cinema 24/7. So, seeing that there are many professionals in this website, i would like to be admonished if LA is the right place to begin, or is LA no longer a city where hopefuls can get anything started? I know the fact that you have to know someone in order to get somewhere, and internships and working in the grip department could possibly open new frontiers. Life without cinema is dull and there's nothing else that i would want to do. Wise decision to live there or not?

Just write him a bad check and hope he doesn't cash it until you've wrapped filming.

Well, don't be discouraged. I just think everyone is trying to admonish you that cinematography requires a lot of hard work and a lifetime to learn. At some point you will have to choose if you would rather shoot films or write and direct them. It's rare for someone to direct and shoot their own films, Even when Jack Cardiff who was a master cinematographer, made the transition to director had other DPs shoot his films. Wally Pfister who made his directorial debut didn't shoot his own film. The only filmmaker I can think of is Reed Morano who shot and directed Meadowland, but she spent her entire life shooting films before making her directorial debut. Concentrate on one thing and get very good at it. As for me, I have chosen to stick with writing, as I've been doing it for six years, and most writers hit their prime in their 30s, so I've still got years to perfect my craft.

I firmly believe a lot of the creativity comes from discussing things with your fellow collaborators. I used to feel the same way, but through trial and error, I realized film is solely a collaborative medium, and there is no other way to do it. Cinematography requires many years of experience before you become proficient. Look at every cinematographer's filmography, and somewhere around the middle (3-4 years) is where their unique artistic vision begins to flourish. All the technical stuff becomes second nature to them over time, so from that point forward their artistry blossoms. So, if you do begin doing your own cinematography, expect to make quite a few mistakes in the beginning.

Cinematography is extremely difficult to do, and I wouldn't recommend doing both the directing and cinematography on your own. I've learned a valuable lesson, as I've unsuccessfully attempted this twice . Time and money are necessary resources in order to film something that is worth putting on camera, and you must have time to think- rushing on any project will burn you out very quickly. The fun part about making films is the creativity that is involved, and when you film with no resources that are vital to the storytelling, you end up with a jumbled mess. Instead of learning about cinematography, I would recommend learning a little more about fund raising. Since you want to write-direct-shoot, I can only surmise that you're doing it out of desperation. Film is a collaborative medium, you need a crew of passionate people that want to make the best film they can, it's no fun when you have 10 things to do at once.

I see, spyder products aren't terribly expensive at Best Buy. My goal is to learn enough to take on an entire feature, I think 70-80 minute features are the norm for new filmmakers. Plus the Sony a7S has 2k capabilities which is better than any canon dslr. Time to go to work, thanks for the help everyone.

I remember I did expose everything correctly but ended up using lumetri looks, and warmed up the gamma more than usual and added a lot of contrast to make it look darker, but either way it looks god awful, I don't know why it looks different in different computers, on some it looks completely underexposed, but on my screen it look properly exposed, on an HD tv the colors bleed out and on others it looks fine. Color grading is a nightmare for me as I truly never know how it looks on different screens. The best I can do is work on my composition, and I want to film more exteriors, I think framing becomes a little more inspired in open spaces than just interiors. I hope this next one will be much better.

wow, great stuff. I suppose the problem on my second short was that I didn't soften the light, I just pointed them upwards to the ceiling, I don't know why I thought that would work, but it didn't. The most annoying part is leveling a tripod, it takes me forever to level it just right, I hate doing that so much.

I really liked the quality the soft light the Kino Flo gave me in my first short, but finding one in houston is actually difficult since I only see one rental house on google and their prices are insanely high. I wouldn't want to burn a house down by doing all that work, and I really hate the quality the tungsten Omni lights by Lowel from my second short, or just maybe I didn't use them right. I just can't light at all, it's awful.

I've been in complete and utter despair over my past work, I feel like my brain is burning and I feel like murdering something, so I decided to make a slasher horror film for my next project. It's a voyeuristic tale of a lonely man who records women with a camcorder and enjoys striking fear into their hearts. I felt my past two short films weren't really saying something about me. I naturally despise happy endings, so I have written a very bleak ending. The short will be entitled 'The Strange Love of Ursula Hatchet'. I discovered it's best to work in genre, since film festivals are all about selling tickets, I figured I have to make something that someone would want to pay to see. I think the horror genre is the best way to slip into the industry, and slasher films are my thing. My main question was lighting for horror films. I over lit the scenes in my second short film and messed up the image even more by warming up the image, and it looked like someone poured a bucket of piss everywhere as you can see here https://vimeo.com/125534167 , and Canon cameras aren't really that great anymore, they can't compete with the quality a Sony a7S or Black Magic camera can give you. I'll be working with no budget at all again, and will be doing everything myself. The reason for that is that no one believes in my ability as a filmmaker, and it hurts a bit but I won't let that stop me. I'm trying to move on and not look back anymore, which is difficult- but I hope the despair will go away and I'll be able to make something that I'm proud of. I really didn't want to make the film look like a horror film, I wanted to do something similar to what Robert Elswit did in 'Nightcrawler'. I love the very dark saturated look of the movie, but I think what I don't know how to do is controlling the light and hiding/rigging lighting instruments for wider shots. I'll be using a Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lens in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. For anyone who has shot "dark" films any advice would be great. I won't be using any film lights, just practicals.

Great filmmaking doesn't come from a pretty image, what I see in Vimeo is nothing but gloss and gorgeous set design. It's as if everyone wants to be Wes Anderson all of a sudden, and I resent this Instagram generation of idiots. Great cinema comes from having an EXPERIENCE, craftsmanship is all about having the ability to create an experience that is true and dramatic. The most powerful asset in a film is the actor, and I don't mean just having your actor moping around, isolating them in a grand cinemascope setting during magic hour, I mean let them think, let them live, not just exist. And the words that flow out of their mouth should tell you more than a thousand images. Take a look at this from George Steven's 'A Place In The Sun', this is everything that i want to do with cinema. It may be from a bygone era, but it's more effective than the poop I'm seeing now. I detest how some people say that words are not cinematic, they are just as much as part of cinema than any image. Look at the way the images dissolve, the way it's all put together, that is amazing craftsmanship! It's good to compare a filmmaker from one another, how else will you know what's for you and what isn't. Now look at the staff picks on Vimeo, and you see nothing but gloss and people looking sorry at the camera, walking around during magic hour, looking at their own reflection, etc. it's **(obscenity removed)** cheap!

On the Roger Deakins website, someone asked him what was the greatest quality in a filmmaker, which he replied "passion". And Tarantino himself once said "If you love cinema with all your heart, you can't help but to make a good movie." I agree passion is a good quality but it does not necessarily make you into a good filmmaker. A little league ball player can have all the passion in the world, but that alone won't make him great, it will keep him playing baseball until he's old, but that doesn't make him great. Truly, the best films I've ever seen come from filmmakers who have a unique vision, the best filmmakers are immersed within themselves, they seem to live in their own universe, and we get to experience that universe when they make films. I consider directors like Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Spielberg to be master craftsmen, they are able to forge films with strong sequences, but the true poets are filmmakers like Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Welles, Kazan, Dreyer. When I see a Bergman film it's as if he's wrestling with himself, spiritually, and there's nothing like it. Sure they may all be passionate, but that quality alone isn't the the thing that defines them.

But isn't every film an intellectual exercise? Emotions can't be defined unless they are experienced in some way, so truly I feel film can either recreate an emotional experience to feel or simply record a moment in time to experience as observers. With 2001: A Space Odyssey, I felt as if I was witnessing an event, the camera was truly an observer, and I believe this style came to be in the way the screenplay was written. But I agree every filmmaker have their own source of inspiration. I figure if someone is going to make a film and be involved with it for years, they need to sustain interest for that amount of time. Still, inspiration and passion alone aren't strong enough to make a filmmaker "great", I don't think that particular quality defines the quality of a storyteller or his importance. To me, the quality that defines a great filmmaker is his perspective, the way he/she sees the world, and being openly honest about, a great filmmaker tries to define or find meaning in life. Of course since cinema is a craft it takes time to learn the language, but once that language is learned, a filmmaker is able to intellectualize his idea, making them openly coherent to an audience, which enables them to feel through an emotional journey. I just finished watching 'Winter Light', and most of the film is shot in close-ups. It made me think of this great quote by Carl Theodore Dreyer Nothing in the world can be compared to the human face. It is a land one can never tire of exploring. There is no greater experience in a studio than to witness the expression of a sensitive face under the mysterious power of inspiration. To see it animated from inside, and turning into poetry.

Yes but the passion comes through what the filmmaker feels, for instance when Paul Thomas Anderson's father died, he dedicated Magnolia to his father, it was about him. Of course the story has to placed within a cinematic context, but that is usually found by watching other films. For instance, if I want to write a story about people who fall in love in a boat, I'd look at films like The Lady Eve, An Affair To Remember, etc. and automatically the film falls into that genre, because it has been written and structured similarly. But the passion stemmed from a feeling and placed within a dramatic context. My point is that films are like emotions stored, because all that you take with you in the end is a feeling. Life is similar, we are a mass thing of emotions, in our death beds (if any of us get there), what will we feel in the end? We won't remember every waking second of our lives, it will all be summed up by an emotion,,,, But in the instance of someone like Paul Thomas Anderson, he said that the film 'Magnolia' was about his father. The story has already been predetermined by the writing in its structure and form, and has already been directed once through the writing. The filmmaking aspect is merely the act of realizing it through images as it is translated by the actor. which is why Huston once said that 80% of directing is in the casting. The editing is where you try to make sense of it all.

I've come to my own understanding of what makes someone a passionate filmmaker, and the simple answer is subject matter. A camera, lenses, lighting- these are only tools to translate the story into a whole, but subject-matter is where the true passion lies. Or some may even find it in music, a painting, and the feeling of it, the story evolves from there. Filmmaking alone is an empty shell of nothing if the subject-matter isn't there or if it's not interesting. It took me a while to figure it out, but that is my definition of a passionate filmmaker, finding something that you love and immersing yourself in it. I forgot that the magic of cinema lies in the possibility of living many lives, to tap into the soul of a stranger and discovering something new, something that you never knew was there. I can see much more clearly now.

I wouldn't want to learn from people who defend this **(obscenity removed)** piece of poop. I mean even in a logical sense, how can anyone not realize someone has hung up after talking for hours! Surely you would wait for your friend or whoever the **(obscenity removed)** he was talking to respond! If there is a moderator, delete my account. You people don't even know what you're talking about. It makes me sick to my stomach. I'll show you how it's done.

I know Roger Deakins wouldn't even comment on it, because it is a **(obscenity removed)** stupid movie that didn't deserve that attention. Roger is a true artist, he knows.

I've lost respect for anyone who likes the short. I am always right, even when I'm wrong! Citizen Kane is a story that shitty short film is NOT a story! It is a mindless situation. Has everyone lost their **(obscenity removed)** minds??? I am out of here.

I know I'm not a great filmmaker, I will be in time when I do a couple more shorts and then finally my feature, but this makes me question who these curators are. The fact that the AFI chose to screen this is an insult to the art of filmmaking. The fact that he didn't even use a tripod, the fact that it's not even a story and a situation that isn't even funny. And I said it before, short films are nothing but situations, they are rarely transcended into an art form, the ones who can make art out of shorts are people like David Lynch. Feature filmmaking is the big leagues, the one that counts. Stanley Kubrick could not have said it better "there is no future in short films", which is why he made Fear and Desire. That's where the men are separated from the boys.

It pisses me off how some of us are trying hard to improve and then you see something like this play at every major festival, it's discouraging as **(obscenity removed)**. And it's not even scripted, he's just improvising the stupidest lines, it makes no sense to me. At least Lena Dunham has stories to tell and she scripts her movies and she can act, but this is beyond me. What are these festival programmers even looking for? I don't even know what they want or what they look for, and it's sad because you have to go through them to get any type of validation as a filmmaker.

Here i am worried about my amateurish camera work and then I see this idiotic short film make it to all major film festivals. I mean, can anyone seriously explain how this thing made it to Sundance, SXSW, AFI, etc. Did this guy blow somebody to get his work seen. It is the most horrendous mumblecore piece of shi** I have ever seen.

that makes a lot of sense. I should start learning from others because I feel everything I've done so far is wrong. Like Yoda once said to Luke

I used a hotel because the story was structured around it. Why would I want to film in a public library? You can't even talk in there, all you do is sit and read books and public schools won't allow any non-students, it's considered trespassing. Same goes with "public" hospitals, etc. These locations will end up requesting million dollar insurance. In my next film I'm starting every single take with a long shot, and then work within the long shot, find the cut within that take. Long to medium, medium to long or long-medium- closeup. This sequence of shots are the norm in most of the classic films. It's very generic but effective. I should think wide first and then get in there.