Michael LaVoie

Have you thought about creating the opportunities yourself rather than trying to get others to hire you. Put simply, be your own boss. Network like mad with everyone you know and find your own clients. I mean for the corporate/industrial commercial stuff. Obviously for anything entertainment related you need to be hired unless you're self producing which costs money. We're talking about earning it. If it's just income you're after via shooting and cutting videos, shoot some freebees for everyone you know. Then hit the pavement and produce videos for some shops, restaurants, whatever. Knock on doors, build a reel, a website and chances are the clients you do free work for will pass your name to others when they see it and want to know who shot it. That's when the phone calls will start coming in. I did this years ago and landed a really good contract with a dance company. I'm not much of a salesman either but you can't let that stop you. I now have a regular client list that pays the bills but that will come in time. No one will do this for you. You have to find them on your own. The gold star clients are institutions like schools, universities, hospitals, etc. Places that aren't going to fold up and that always need AV work of some kind. Landing a service contract with any of them will provide one with a lot of repeat business. Something to think about. But remember, no one will hire you if they don't know you and haven't heard of you. You're only hope with people who don't know you, is to volunteer your services and do a great job. Then, they'll be able to hire you in the future or recommend you to others. Cold calling and knocking on doors rarely lands you paid contracts. You have to prove yourself first.

I don't fully understand that. Keith Gordon was one of my favorite indie filmmakers who is now doing mostly episodic TV like Dexter, etc. Nicole Holofcener's another good example. Usually if I see a really good episode of anything, I'll check who the director was and almost always, it's someone who's done really great indie features. There work tends to stand out.

I'm in preproduction on a feature now and the script was written in Adobe Story, which I've never heard of but Adobe claims it can do reports the way FInal Draft or Movie Magic can. So it's an element based screenwriting and production tool. Only thing is, I've never used it nor heard of it till now. Has anyone else had any success with Adobe Story?

I'd recommend a fresnel for lighting talent. Even an older colortran baby is cheaper than a brand new redhead. It's best not to go tungsten if you don't have to though. The heat is annoying and hazardous and they pull too much electricity. You can build a flourescent bank yourself for the same price as a redhead. Similar to that spider light but if you do it as a batstrip instead of a par they'll all be flat making the surface of the unit like a kino. You just get a case, the sockets, zip cord, Some color correct CFL's with a CRI of 90 or higher and you're good to go. I built 5 that fold open and simply plug in. They each closeup into their own self contained case. The lights have lasted me 5 years and I've never had to change the bulbs. They function the same as a Kino Diva and were built for a third of the cost. Much better for subject lighting. Redheads are good for lighting the set and backgrounds. Anything DIY, beginner or sketchy though is best kept to small gigs like interviews and your own personal projects. You never want to bring this type of stuff onto serious commercial or narrative shoots for other people or offer it up as a rental to other DP's who are expecting a normal standard package. The further along you get, it even becomes a matter of sticking with only a few name brands like Arri and Kino, Dedo etc to avoid raising eyebrows. But for now, as a student, building your own lights and spending money on the grip gear that you can't DIY like Cstands is the way to go.

Christine Vachon spoke at my film school once about being an independent producer. It was inspiring listening to her and watching her play trailers for Swoon, Safe, Kids, etc. on VHS on a TV. Then talk about how she got to where she did. 13 years later I saw this talk she gave on the state of indie film. Scroll down to watch the video.

I have had occasions where there's several years of back to back projects that happened mostly through networking on set. When you work for 4 to 6 weeks on a film you meet a lot of people in the business so it's easier to stay busy once you are busy. Every film has the potential to lead to more. A good co-ordinator can get one a lot of work. I used to get really nervous when I had no work on the way. I only recently learned to enjoy the downtime from paid projects and spend it writing, shooting short films of my own, spec commercials, etc. I never work for free for others, but I no longer define my own work by whether there's a paycheck at the end of the final cut. It's what I do and I find the outside work comes in easier when I keep busy with my own commercial and narrative projects. There's a freedom to learn, risk failure and find new inspiration when you work on stuff that's entirely your own. So downtime can be a great way to gain new perspective and recharge your creativity.

What's his secret? No one knows for sure? But he's very good at the "hustle" and he doesn't sit around waiting for his phone to ring. I think all young DOPs could take a page out of Steve's playbook. One thing he does not do is complain about a lack of work! Hope that wasn't directed at me, I'm not complaining at all about a lack of work. I'm simply agreeing that there is a misconception among certain types in this business that one can praise and move up a director who did an excellent short or indie film but one had better drop their DP like a sack of potatoes cause they can't handle a bigger budget. I also spoke with Kevin Smith about this during a Q n A of Clerks 2. He had the same problem. Dave Klein shot everything up to Chasing Amy. Then he was dropped on Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back cause the budget was too big. Kevin vowed never again and fought hard to get him back on Clerks 2. Now I think he's in the ASC. It's just an unnecessary barrier of entry to getting past Tier 1 that all DP's must face. Someone has to take a chance on them. Talent and determination and people skills are a given to success. But even all that will only go so far in the film world. There is a huge component of luck and timing. Unfortunately, even when that comes together, others must make that leap of faith if they see it that way or just use common sense and realize it's a smart move to pair a new director with their DP who helped get them the opportunity in the first place.

2. When a young director you came up with gets a shot at a feature, he will never be able to take you along with him. At those heightened entry budget levels, they will demand a veteran DP. They never pair rookie director with rookie DP. They'll gladly take a chance on a new director, but never on a new DP. Soooo true. I met Agnieszka Wojtowicz once. She is the rags to riches success story every young filmmaker dreams of being. She did one short film Pate in 2001 that won the grand jury at Sundance. It was her senior thesis film. Next thing she did was 8 years later, Afterlife with Christina Ricci and Liam Neeson. Seriously. From a senior thesis project to directing Liam Neeson? That's kind of ridiculous. And I asked her whether she fought to have Shawn Kim, the DP on Pate work on Afterlife. I mean, afterall, he helped her get that opportunity. Who knows if Pate would have won had another DP shot it? Of course the answer was no. She tried but the bond company wouldn't allow Shawn to shoot it cause he hadn't done anything that big before. Yeah, but they'd trust a multi-million dollar budget to a first time director just cause her short won Sundance? This logic in the business is absolutely retarded. As if it gets more difficult to shoot something when you have more money and a larger crew and a longer schedule. The exact opposite is true. It's much harder to shoot for the exact same results when you have no money, no crew and half the time. I wish execs and bond companies would trust DP's the way they seem to trust brand new directors. Especially since we typically have way more on set experience and paid way more dues.

It really depends on what you want to shoot. If you're primarily a portrait photographer, where is your interest in cinematography coming from? Do you want to tell stories and learn how to shoot narrative film? Or are you just looking to do wedding films, music videos or documentaries? Film school can help with everything but it's highly recommended if you're actually looking to go into narrative. Cause there's just way too much to learn on your own and it's a huge help to have a few years of education in it. That said, you can certainly push forward without school and practice shooting interviews, landscapes and events and cut your teeth on those sorts of low risk gigs and learn as you go. Just don't rule out film school. My first year I had people of all ages, races and backgrounds. Nothing unusual about that.

You're already on the right track by going back to the basics to take a first year course in it. If you are lucky enough to get access to 35mm or even S16 sync sound film cameras and to shoot double system, I'd say go for it. Odds are good the school got rid of their film gear a while ago but if not, cut your teeth on film stock before going straight to digital. Just for the experience. Cause once you leave, it may be tough to get the opportunity to work on film.

This camera leads me to believe that it's likely that Sony might have a 4K version of the FS100 coming to NAB this year. Something that will make F5 and F55 purchasers angry. That's Sony's M.O. After all, the FS700 was out within a year of the FS100 release. So it stands to reason they'd undercut the market on the F5/55 with a cheaper alternative really quickly. Hopefully it'll be like the FS700 but with internal 4K and slow mo and a codec that's not too heavily compressed. And for the love of christ internal ND's or selectable ISO that starts below 500.

Need some advice, I have shot quite a few microbudget features ( meaning non studio, non company, privately backed films) for first time directors and one issue that has been all too common among many of the shoots is the lack of an experienced production team (line producer, production manager, upm, co-ordinator, 1st A.D. etc.) On those shoots that lacked that, I'd just do enough prep on my own and the scripts and conditions weren't really that tough. We always managed okay with reasonable days and the greener people involved handled their tasks well. In some cases it was a little bumpier than others. Some films offered good pay, an interesting script and the director was well intentioned and genuinely nice. So I took those gigs and the only thing missing was the production team. Most importantly, that voice of authority on set calling the roll etc. The 1st A.D. Without that, it pretty much falls to me to make sure that we keep a 12 hour day. So it means I have extra work to keep track of the time and keep everything moving. On top of that, the amount of confirming and reconfirming every piece of gear and crew member throughout the shoot is exhausting. Not having any call sheets till the very last second, or call sheets with misinformation. That sort of super annoying stuff. A proper production staff allows a DP a little piece of mind that things are taken care of. You can go to sleep knowing everything you need and everyone you need will be on set the next day at the right location at the right time. But to new producers, it seems like the whole idea of the production department is just inconvenient information that no one wants to hear. Very few first time directors see the value in staffing positions that they don't quite understand. They often think an A.D. is a "Directors Assistant". Meaning their own personal assistant. They feel like they can do a production co-ordinators job themselves or have their friend handle it all. etc. Has anyone else had this problem? How do you convince newbie producers to turn over the reigns and book a production department to make the process a lot smoother and streamlined. I have a tough time making any headway with these recommendations. Maybe I'm the wrong person to suggest it. Who should this recommendation come from so that people take it seriously? It often seems like a bit of an ego clash. Because what I'm implying, in essence is that the producer and director need to put people in charge of them. To sort of "save them from themselves". Which is the truth but not something anyone wants to admit to. So how to delicately suggest it and remove that subtext altogether?

He did that on his last two films The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. Not a fan of it. Or the rapid fire editing. It feels like you're watching the movie at 2x the normal speed. As though we'd all be bored if he slowed it down to a normal pace. It's good for a director to show some restraint when it comes to moving the camera and spinning around actors who are doing nothing more than having casual dialogue with one another. His first film Spanking the Monkey was a really great little indie that showed the performances off really well through simple modest means.

There are countless lighting tutorials on youtube. Where you can watch people light and see the results of what they're doing. It's kind of amazing these days to fail at anything since almost all of the knowledge you need to do just about anything is on youtube in some kind of tutorial. The better ones might require a subscription but I'd start there. Cause watching someone do it whether online or in person is just way easier to grasp than reading it in a book. The only thing that can't be taught is style. Why you make the lighting choices you make and why you choose this lens or that, camera placement etc. Those are decisions that a director may at some point leave up to you and thats where you'll have to make artistic choices. But the nut and bolts of the craft should be second nature before you get to that point.

Is it possible to switch out set technicians on a union job? If a production was pulling a ridiculous 20 hour day, why not clock the crew out after 12 hours and bring in fresh set techs to finish the remaining 8 hours? For those that wanted to voluntarilly leave set I mean due to the fact that they were exhausted. Cause even with a 12 hour day, with travel it can turn into 14 hours. And if there's very little turnaround to the next day, etc. People would burn out quickly. Seems like a much safer option than working people to exhaustion. On most regular jobs that involve covering a business open past the usual 8 hour business day there are "shifts". AM and PM shifts. So why are "shifts" not possible in the film industry when the days are so ridiculously long. I watched the documentary and I realize there are people who like the overtime, golden hour etc. But if there were the option for the rigging grip to say clock out after 14 hours and have someone take over, I think many people may opt in to it. Rather than accidentally driving off a bridge cause they fell asleep behind the wheel after an 18 hour day. There was no mention of the idea of actual working "shifts" in the documentary so I thought I would ask if that's just not permitted or accepted as an option.

Pre-production on a film as a DP involves assisting with assembling a crew, equipment package, tech scouting locations, breaking down the screenplay into a shooting script by shotlisting and storyboarding with the director. Among other duties. I'm sure there's a wikipedia page out there and more info in books but those are the first things that come to mind. Possibly the best thing you can do to "prep" is to have already planned out the entire shoot with the director and A.D. before you show up to photograph it. Know every camera placement, how you're going to light it and then schedule the day accordingly so you know how long to spend on each shot. Cause once you get going, there's rarely any time to think about it. You end up playing a game of beat the clock almost always so if you've done all the work ahead of time, you can relax and enjoy the production process a lot more.

One bonus to not operating is that being able to check in with the director at the monitor can make it really awkward for a script supervisor or A.D. to backseat DP a film and make suggestions about lenses, lighting, camera placement etc. Because the DP is right there within earshot. So count that as an advantage that being near the director will cause others to be less likely to overstep their positions and wind up making "suggestions" that they really have no place making.

Anyone know of an alternative software bundle to Movie Magic that does the same thing? Ideally something cheaper that also has an app for android mobile devices. I'm aware of Celtx and other sort of general organizational software but I mean something specifically targeted at production and on the same level as Movie Magic.

I shot a feature in Denver 10 years ago. Great city. There were a few rental houses there with great staff. Perhaps you can find someone there who can help you out. Often the rental staffers make great set techs. For a gaffer, Ideally you want someone with a good team of friendly, fast grips/electricians who will listen to them. Also someone who knows as much as any licensed electrician and won't cause a wall fire or circuit failure. It's great if they understand the difference between how to create daylight vs. moonlight in a scene but that's really the Cinematographer's job. Since you said you're new to film, In the narrative world, the job of lighting a movie extends far beyond being a skilled set technician. And that's where the DP is important. Cause a DP has a greater awareness and understanding of light, mood, color, contrast etc. A gaffer may be an accomplished technician and a joy to have on set, be a wonderful crew manager but they may not have an inherent instinct and understanding of how to light a film and interpret a script etc.

What gaffer would work for a DP who has no idea how to light? A gaffer can help technically of course but a huge degree of the art of cinematography rests in the lighting. There's a great documentary about this called "Visions of LIght, the art of Cinematography" Notice it's not called, "The art of gaffing" I find it really annoying when I see ads for "Lighting Designer" on a film. Cause that's the DP position.

Those dimmers you pictured are "router speed controllers" and you can get them from Harbor Freight Tools for about $19 each. They are great as dimmers but they will blow fuses cause they're not that well made. So go out with a bunch of extra fuses and you're good.

The biggest issue I've noticed with Chinese knock offs of Tungsten lights is that they burn out bulbs alot faster than say an Arri fresnel. I did a shoot where I had six 150wt fresnels. 3 of them were rented arri's and 3 were chinese knockoffs bought by the director. The arri's never lost a bulb but the others all burned out within 2 days of shooting. I have always wondered how the HMI equivalents are as I've seen those all over Ebay but never had a chance to see them in action. Point is, always go out on a shoot with spare bulbs and in the case of knockoffs, bring several spares. PAR's are great too. If you have to do night exteriors pars can help you light up street scapes without running tons of cable as they can send hard light for a distance. The C-stands, flags, nets, diff, blackwrap, etc. bead board. All those things will allow you to shape and cut the light in ways that the units may not allow. So when you have limited lights, make sure you create a setcrate for yourself with all those extras.

If a director wants to operate, I'll usually suggest that a director operate a "run through for camera" to demonstrate to me exactly what they want. Which is helpful. Then when we roll, I'll operate on the take. That seems to satisfy most directors. They get to find the shot on their own but also get to watch it actually happen at the monitor.

It insists upon itself. The cinematography is almost too beautiful in that it just gets in the way. I'm a huge fan of Hoyte Van Hoytema and thought Let The Right One in was absolutely gorgeous. But in Tinker Tailor it sort of seems like he was beating his chest for 2 hours. It sure looked great. But I will admit to almost falling asleep several times throughout the film in spite of that fact.

I got depressed at the premiere of Drawing With Chalk. It opened at the Quad Cinemas in NY in March and despite the fact that it looked decent on the big screen and we had a good turnout, the overall weekend reception was coming off the heels of a nasty review of the film in the NY Times. As an unknown cinematographer, you're always hoping that a film will succeed and take you along with it. Working with zero budget, it's very difficult to get a film with no stars into a theater to begin with and when a reviewer takes that opportunity to just rip it up, after years on the festival circuit where people seemed to really respond well, something seems so utterly unfair. Someone else might have reviewed it and really liked it and who knows where the film might have gone. I don't take it personally but it was definitely depressing.