Directing 101

OK, kids.

Here's a fact: I've never had a film class in my life. Sat in on a couple when I looked at colleges in 2001, but only for a little while.

My only "film school" has been watching films and taking note. Not notes, as I've never been one to write shit down, but I've taken note on how films have been made aesthetically. I think I have a good eye in my favor. Well, I know I do. And I think I grasp the idea of camera placement to advance drama. I'm a very visually-oriented person.

But I started this thread to field any ideas on where to look on the internets for more information on filmmaking. Comprehensive videos, or books. Stuff you've looked at. Because being on the forums has also been very instructive. Bouncing ideas around, watching boobs bounce, getting ideas on what films to seek out, bitching about the new Star Trek movie, etc.

In the absense of a camera (a real video one) I've even thought of taking snap shots of how I'd film a scene based on a script. Using exhumed corpses probably.

Though I know a lot of local filmmakers... Could maybe procure some equipment.

Wish I could just play around with a camera and try to shoot something.

https://www.youtube.com/user/nyvs?feature=pvchclk

This looks interesting. May check out some videos. I'm serious, I don't know a damn thing about the technical side of this. Different lenses, types of film, all that jazz. I know it's pretty much all digital now, of course.

I just know what looks right in terms of a film. I have no fucking clue as to how to achieve it.

I don't know if there's anything I can really recommend, because all my education has been from the words of men who work in the industry. I have a few textbooks, but never found them particularly helpful, although "Film Art" by Bordwell and Thompson is a good place to start, it has decent explanations of continuity editing and the 180 degree rule, as well as numerous illustrated examples.

Aren't you pushing 30, Tux? That's pretty late to start a film career these days, particularly if you know nothing about it. There's an interesting article here:

Start as young as you can, in any capacity. For directing music videos and commercials, the window opens around age 23. For features, the best you can hope for is to start in your late twenties. But the window closes too. If you haven’t directed a feature-length Hollywood picture by the time you’re 35, you probably never will.

Quote :

In today’s Hollywood, a novice director is likely to start making features between ages 26 and 34. It’s also very likely that he or she will have already done professional directing in commercials, music videos, or episodic
TV

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/09/13/the-magic-number-30-give-or-take-4/

Listening to the Director's commentary on DVDs yields interesting information, as do some behind the scenes features

Good luck in your endeavours!

Tux, I think your first priority is to obtain a camera. Preferably HD (1080p). I know cost is always an issue, but you could find one for a relatively low price, even if it's a refurbished model. I think mine cost about $650-700, but you could probably find a good one from $300-400.

For now, while you're cameraless, your photography idea may be the next best thing.

Also, I don't completely agree with the theory that you only need a camera and a laptop, as mentioned in the video you posted. Yeah, that's useful if you want to make lowbrow, YouTube-grade nonsense. If that's the case, then CASINOROYALE should look to become a film guru. Knowledge of color, light, how your camera works, etc. are also essentials, of course.

The books I own on the topic of cinema are technical books or they contain essays about films and interviews with filmmakers. "Hitchcock" might be the holy grail, as far as I'm concerned, simply because it consists of the words from a filmmaking God (and was also conducted by another, in my opinion).

Perhaps you could start putting a portfolio together soon. If you're looking to post your work online, I strongly recommend Vimeo over YouTube, unless you're simply interested in how many people can "thumbs up" your work and view your channel. Vimeo also gives users the ability to submit their work to various channels, in which the staff will promote your videos if they like them enough. And, there are always film festivals.

That link that Ambler posted is pretty useful and serves as a nice little reality check for any wannabe known filmmaker. Right now is the right time to get started.

Avarice wrote:

Aren't you pushing 30, Tux? That's pretty late to start a film career these days, particularly if you know nothing about it. There's an interesting article here:

Start as young as you can, in any capacity. For directing music videos and commercials, the window opens around age 23. For features, the best you can hope for is to start in your late twenties. But the window closes too. If you haven’t directed a feature-length Hollywood picture by the time you’re 35, you probably never will.

Quote :

In today’s Hollywood, a novice director is likely to start making features between ages 26 and 34. It’s also very likely that he or she will have already done professional directing in commercials, music videos, or episodic
TV

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/09/13/the-magic-number-30-give-or-take-4/

Well, I'm foremost an actor. That's how I plan to break in. When I can get back to LA, which sadly won't be in 2011. Though at least I still look under 20.

Quote :

On the whole, the directors who start old have found fame and power playing other roles. When you’re David Mamet, you can tackle your first feature at 40. (He’s my age; don’t think this doesn’t make me depressed.) If you’re a producer like Bob Shaye or Jon Avnet, you can start directing in your fifties. Actors, especially stars, get a pass at any age. Mel Gibson made his first feature at 37, Steve Buscemi at 39, Barbra Streisand at 41, Anthony Hopkins at 59.

I have to find success as an actor and/or make the right connections.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Tux, I think your first priority is to obtain a camera. Preferably HD (1080p). I know cost is always an issue, but you could find one for a relatively low price, even if it's a refurbished model. I think mine cost about $650-700, but you could probably find a good one from $300-400.

For now, while you're cameraless, your photography idea may be the next best thing.

Also, I don't completely agree with the theory that you only need a camera and a laptop, as mentioned in the video you posted. Yeah, that's useful if you want to make lowbrow, YouTube-grade nonsense. If that's the case, then CASINOROYALE should look to become a film guru. Knowledge of color, light, how your camera works, etc. are also essentials, of course.

The books I own on the topic of cinema are technical books or they contain essays about films and interviews with filmmakers. "Hitchcock" might be the holy grail, as far as I'm concerned, simply because it consists of the words from a filmmaking God (and was also conducted by another, in my opinion).

Perhaps you could start putting a portfolio together soon. If you're looking to post your work online, I strongly recommend Vimeo over YouTube, unless you're simply interested in how many people can "thumbs up" your work and view your channel. Vimeo also gives users the ability to submit their work to various channels, in which the staff will promote your videos if they like them enough. And, there are always film festivals.

That link that Ambler posted is pretty useful and serves as a nice little reality check for any wannabe known filmmaker. Right now is the right time to get started.

Well, actually getting a camera and software would be too much right now. I may finally have a chance at a waiting job soon. Could make more money. But I gotta save up for my return to LA. Yeah, I got a bargain HDTV, but I needed it for my sanity. It's changed my movie-viewing experience quite a lot already.

And that channel I posted? Useless. Sounds more mercenary than artistic.

I'm interested in directing in general. I gotta work on acting first, though. And I want to direct actors on stage. And be a good actor's director. I just wish I were in LA where I could really work on my craft at my acting school.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I have to find success as an actor and/or make the right connections.

Work with your peers.

There are some old general guide's like the Richard Bare book on directing, if you don't mind reading from the guy who helmed every GREEN ACRES episode ever made. But you have probably sopped up most of that subconsciously by viewing films heavily and studiously.

Having said that .... it ain't nothing like actually shooting. You forget everything you knew, or thought you knew, and make so many imbecilic mistakes that you just rush out and shoot somemore, just to try to get past the embarrassment. And when you get your first happy accident, where you get something great without even trying (for me it was usually when a piece of set would fall over and generate a 'real' startled reaction), it puts the other stuff in relief, looking even worse, and then you realize how great everything has to be in order to maintain that level throughout ... and why so very few achieve it, even after decades.

You mentioned you know some filmmaker wannabes. Get in with them and watch, or work with them. Collaboration takes many forms, and if somebody sparks you, and it fires right back, that's a synergy you can't get out of any book or website (that I know of, anyway.)

For me, as exciting/unnerving as shooting was, it was always editing that was the most fun. Solving a problem from shooting or making a cross-cut story point that I hadn't thought of when typing (yes, I go well back into the typewriter era) the script or shooting is something I couldn't get enough of.

When II was doing this, it was on film, and stock was EXPENSIVE. So you've got the advantage now of shooting as much as your cast will stand there for, which lets you make mistakes faster and climb up the learning curve more efficiently.

In terms of seriously useful hands-on info (some of which, the vfx stuff, is probably obsolete these days), I think I'd say try to find back issues of SUPER 8 FILMMMAKER, which morphed into MOVING IMAGES magazine shortly before dying altogether around 1980 or so. They'd have good interviews with industry professionals (I remember one with Harry Keller talking about STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO, years before I found out he shot the retakes on TOUCH OF EVIL, that retroactively evil bastard!), really good tutorials on editing, shooting fx in-camera, and knowing the limitations of being somebody with very finite resources.

You could also see how much tougher sound was back then (on super8 cameras, the sound was physically 18 frames separated from the picture (space between film gate and sound head), so anytime you cut, you lost a second of sound, which made editing a total F***IN' nightmare, lemme tell you. Plus the cameras had this little filter for daylight or indoor/tungsten,and it kept switching while you shot, making all your interiors look like the Enterprise-D at Amorgosa, or your exteriors look like albino versions of Cameron movies with their blue hue.

GET A CAMERA AND SHOOT! (couldn't hurt to write something first, though.)

trevanian wrote:

GET A CAMERA AND SHOOT! (couldn't hurt to write something first, though.)

That's the thing. I'd want to have something to shoot. I want to take a script, understand it, and find a way to shoot it that is right for getting the story across. Basically tackling things from a storyteller angle (heh, didn't mean that pun). And preferably something I haven't written. First, I'm not a real writer and second, I think it's better to learn by interpreting someone else's words. In acting I think it's vital to start that way in terms of training. Don't start with shit you've written.

If I just grab a camera and start shooting... well, WTF is the point if I don't know what I'm trying to shoot.

As for wannabee filmmakers. I know a guy who has made indie flicks. I even PA'd on one 10 years ago. And I know some guys trying a get a second feature together which I already have a role in. And another guy did the Brother Barbarian thing I linked to. I stood around watching that guy pretty closely. I know a good many people in this town.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

If I just grab a camera and start shooting... well, WTF is the point if I don't know what I'm trying to shoot.

Kubrick didn't know how to shoot the rape in CLOCKWORK until about four days after starting it.

Comparing apples & oranges, I know ...

You could try a short story, one that could scriptify by just magic markering the relevant points (Welles pretty much did this with AMBERSONS on his first pass. I still think the perfect version of FLETCH could be done in the same fashion, without any C. Chase enhancement.) One approach (something I didn't try, but other filmmakers I knew were mired in) was to just shoot an incident, not a movie. This one guy always did stuff about equipment failing, but it was never with context. He was good at showing stuff blow up, but there wasn't involvement, but he knew his stuff about the 180 line and suchlike. You can become workmanlike just practicing the craft.

I'll weigh back in on this in about four days, I'm beat.

trevanian wrote:

You can become workmanlike just practicing the craft.

Tux could become the next John Glen.

Tux - this site has some pretty good competitions where you can make music videos and if you win your video becomes official etc.

http://genero.tv//

Once you get your camera though ...

Nice link, Fae. I'm going to look into that myself.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I don't know a damn thing about the technical side of this. Different lenses, types of film, all that jazz. I know it's pretty much all digital now, of course.

I just know what looks right in terms of a film. I have no fucking clue as to how to achieve it.

I feel that. I look at a Sternberg film and I know what I like about it, but fuck knows how he actually got those images. I would probably know how to frame a shot, block actors, and arrange some other elements of mise-en-scène competently, but I'd have no idea how to direct lighting, or how to select lenses. I've always assumed that the cinematographer would be the guy to deal with most technical aspects of the shooting, but if I were a filmmaker I'd want to be like Bergman - really learn all aspects of the craft, so I don't need to depend on anybody.

In terms of books, I'd be really interested to read Kazan's. I'd like to try filming something one day, but I have no idea how I'd interface with actors. I assume he'd be a fountain of knowledge regarding that. I'd like to read Mackendrick's book too. Not because I see him as an amazing filmmaker (although I do respect him), but just because I hear it's a good one. Sirk on Sirk too, but I can't even find it used on Amazon.

HJackson wrote:

I've always assumed that the cinematographer would be the guy to deal with most technical aspects of the shooting, but if I were a filmmaker I'd want to be like Bergman - really learn all aspects of the craft, so I don't need to depend on anybody.

If you want to educate yourself about cinematography, I suggest joining a forum devoted to it. I've got a casual interest in it myself, I sometimes browse around, looking up how the greats achieved what they did. Whether it's how they used a high f-stop number, deep focus or front projection.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showforum=35
http://studentfilmmakers.com/bb/forumdisplay.php?f=17

Or even just browsing through Google helps, if you know what you're looking for.

I.e. Here's some informative posts about Ted Moore's approach to lensing and lighting Bond films:

Quote :

I would say the films were designed for Technicolor in the classic studio
style of cinematography which is why they looked so good on blu ray which
enhances this type of camerawork. Ted Moore's lighting design is integral
to this look. They no longer shoot films in this style so they have that
sixties "Glorious Technicolor" look which I really like with rich saturated fleshtones
and vibrant primaries. Navy blue skies and so forth. I especially got a kick out of Ted Moore's credit in "From Russia with Love" which is over a close up a woman's jiggling bottom. Very droll.
They weren't shot on the best film stock, just the standard 35mm Kodak Eastmancolor negative of the time. But, the negatives were stored in good conditions in England (temperature controlled) so they didn't fade too much which is another reason the 4K transfers are top notch. And they were A & B rolled for first generation opticals (fades, dissolves) which avoided the grainy dupe stock of the time utilized
by non-Technicolor features. England always had better quality control regarding the materials than the US where studios like UA were pretty sloppy regarding processing and storage. Fortunately, these were UK productions that United Artists (now Warner/MGM) had exclusive distribution rights too but they weren't technically US features.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/official-dvd-blu-ray-movie-reviews/14266-dr-no-bond-oo7-blu-ray-review-see-bond-his-first-movie-ever-like-youve-never-seen-before.html#post126136

Quote :

I'm with David on the best stuff being FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and might I also add ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. However, I get the impression that your project may not be about celebrating the best bits, but rather the standard/generic look we all remember from that era of Bond. Because of this I'd look towards GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL, which are murky with very flat, frontal, multiple shadowed, hard, three point lighting, illuminated for exposure. Zooms were almost never used from what I can remember (even the famous shot of Jill Masterton shooting at Bond in Switzerland from GOLDFINGER was a physical crane shot and not a zoom) as the stocks used were painfully slow, even for the time (25-50asa). Ted Moore was usually also lighting to high f-stops because the pre YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE Bonds were so cheap that they couldn't afford to relight for close ups. Video and the smaller chips will help you here!

Make sure all of your driving sequences are made to look like bad process (rear projection and travelling mattes), so use bluescreen and make sure the background plates aren't steady, and ONLY use stock footage for plates. PROUDLY use stock footage for establishing shots of locations, and if you can degrade these as though they have been lifted from another film/stock footage library/a documentary/a detatched second unit (all of which were the truth in Sean's early films). Also shoot without a shutter and speed up in post to simulate the undercranked/choppy editing during the action sequences.

Finally, NEVER use diffusion.

Follow all of those rules and you'll hit the nail on the head. Is this a spoof, by any chance?

Quote :

Quote :

Ted Moore, after all, was nominated both for an Academy Award and a BAFTA for his cinematography of "A Man For All Seasons".

Which, to be honest, isn't anything special and just involved floodlighting for exposure John Box's typically inspired art direction (PASSAGE TO INDIA, anyone?). Ernest Lazlo or Connie Hall should have got the Oscar that year for Fantastic Voyage or The Professionals.

I have to agree that Moore wasn't up to much as an old school DP. He was only chosen for Bond because they could get him cheap, and as soon as the budgets went up they threw him off in favour of Freddie Young. As soon as the budget was slashed for Diamonds are Forever (which pales next to Unsworth's unintentionally more epic Bond spoofing Return of the Pink Panther) through man with the Golden Gun, he returned. Alan Hume who shot the later Roger Moore Bond films was shooting The Carry On movies and The Avengers episodes on FAR tighter budgets/shedules at the same time and his work makes a joke out of Moore's stuff (compare Carry On Spying to Thunderball).

I have trouble believing Ted Moore shot FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Young shot You Only Live Twice with the scope of a Lean picture and and Michael Reed's Cool Britannia romantic approach to On Her Majesty's Secret Service was more Terence Donovan and John Cowan pop fashion photography than The Third Man. Still, they were both of Moore's generation, and on those movies often used hard light, high f-stops and measured in footcandles.

Ted Moore wasn't in the same league as the already mentioned old school DPs like Young, Unsworth or Morris, and there are many others of that generation worthy of mention: for example Arthur Ibbetson (Anne of a Thousand Days was only equalled by Hall's Butch Cassidy regarding the cinematography oscar for 1970) and Christopher Challis, who's lighting approach is flat out antiquated now, yet every one of his pictures today appears regal and made in such an overwhelming baroque but ultimately skillful fashion (like delicate Victorian press printing in an era of colour Inkjet). Real priceless art and craft stuff. Those guys were old school, studio trained movie cameramen who had graduated from operator just as Moore did, unlike Watkin who was a transport documentary cine cameraman who moved into TV ads and features.

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=9925#ixzz1W4SCWzUd


-------

It's kind of like learning a new language. You've got interact with people who know a hell lot of more than you, and through that, hopefully some of it rubs off. Before I registered on MI6, I was a complete n00b regarding cinema. By reading Harmsway, Tux, Sykes, Ambler, Colly, and your posts, I began to appreciate films in a different light.

I'm a member at cinematography.com. Knowledgeable group over there.

I mainly read the forums, and only post when I need some cinematography advice. I don't think I'm anywhere close to some of those folks' levels of expertise, when it comes to cinematography, so I'd probably just embarrass myself if I tried to discuss things with them.

Shark wrote:

Before I registered on MI6, I was a complete n00b regarding cinema. By reading Harmsway, Tux, Sykes, Ambler, Colly, and your posts, I began to appreciate films in a different light.

Same here. I was actually a fucking retard, to put it bluntly.

Well, I may still be, but I've watched a few more films since, at least.

HJackson wrote:

In terms of books, I'd be really interested to read Kazan's. I'd like to try filming something one day, but I have no idea how I'd interface with actors. I assume he'd be a fountain of knowledge regarding that.

http://www.amazon.com/Kazan-Master-Director-Discusses-Interviews/dp/1557044465/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314308085&sr=1-6

GET IT. If you don't have it. I liked it as much as HITCHCOCK, if not better.

Kazan was an actor. He was in the group theatre. I think acting is the real trick about learning to be a director. Or at least one real trick. You can know about the technical aspects, but you won't get far with shitty acting. Another problem is that, in my opinion, few small-time filmmakers have access to good or well-trained actors. That kind of training is completely different and in my experience it's hard to find truely good training.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Nice link, Fae. I'm going to look into that myself.

No problem, Brown. :)

I was going to enter the one for The Panic (alas year 12 got in the way) with a friend and we were going to make a stop motion production. Or attempt to. (I've never used stop motion before but no time like the present)

Sharky wrote:

It's kind of like learning a new language. You've got interact with people who know a hell lot of more than you, and through that, hopefully some of it rubs off. Before I registered on MI6, I was a complete n00b regarding cinema. By reading Harmsway, Tux, Sykes, Ambler, Colly, and your posts, I began to appreciate films in a different light.

Thanks for the links. They look like excellent communities. Those folks on cinematography.com really know their stuff - it's sort of intimidating, but also strangely comforting that there is so much stuff to learn. I don't plan to try my hand at making anything for a while (I'm only eighteen and I feel that there is such a thing as starting too early - I don't really think I have the life experience to make filmmaking worthwhile), but a richer understanding of cinematography should enhance my appreciation of film regardless.

And I certainly agree with your last point. The upside to losing the old forum is that I'll never have to look at my old posts and cringe again. It's really amazing when I think about how much this community has helped me develop as a cinephile.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Kazan-Master-Director-Discusses-Interviews/dp/1557044465/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314308085&sr=1-6

GET IT. If you don't have it. I liked it as much as HITCHCOCK, if not better.

Thanks for that. I just ordered it :)

HJackson wrote:

(I'm only eighteen and I feel that there is such a thing as starting too early - I don't really think I have the life experience to make filmmaking worthwhile), but a richer understanding of cinematography should enhance my appreciation of film regardless.

I disagree with this.

I think filmmaking is something that you should start early on. While you may not be churning out the D&M things there is never a better chance to get practice in filming. I think just filming something - maybe a short music video and get used to the camera, see what works and what doesn't, work on editing (which is another ball game) etc.

Even if your stuff isn't D&M it hardly matters because you are building up your skills so when you do have something worthwhile to film you'll already have a fair idea what to expect etc.

I'd probably side with Fae, even though I totally get where HJackson is coming from and partly agree. I think life experience can really benefit any creative person, be it an actor, writer, or director. But you shouldn't wait on technical experience. I don't expect to make a good (or if I'm lucky, great) film for 10 or 15 years. Who the hell even knows. I can't put a number on it. But I don't want to wait until then (after I've established an acting career and got enough money or funding to make a film) to figure out how to actually make a movie.

Hell, I'm a MUCH better actor than I was some years ago, and I will be a much better actor in years to come. I couldn't play Hamlet or whatever right now, but I can play some things.

Speaking as someone who made amateur films BEFORE going to film school, and is now making them AFTER, knowing the technical side is a HUGE boost. I can't stress enough how important the information I've gained has been. It makes me look back on everything I did before and think "I was such an idiot".

I'm quite involved in film-making now. It's been a learning curve as I haven't had any formal training. However, I really found the following book by Chris Jones http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guerilla-Film-Makers-Movie-Blueprint/dp/0826414532Guerilla-Film-Makers-Movie-Blueprint helpful. I'll admit the technical side is somewhat out of date (unless you are shooting film/16mm), but many of the useful tips and processes are still spot on.

Meanwhile if anyone can give me any useful 101 tips, I may need them next weekend! ;)