Ted Spencer
Veteran
I love the cars in this film...
FEATURE: DEUCE OF SPADES - How I made a period full feature film all by myself on ZERO budget
- Thread starter Deuceofspades
- Start date
10s
Veteran
Faith, very very impressive work, you're another Robert Rodriguiez,
but hotter, -- I couldn't resist saying that, ....and everyone else here.... you're hot too :nads:
These 1st works are normally calling cards that let producers & financers see what we can do with bare bones, you've hit the ball out of the park and smashed the big window!
What ever you do, finish this project!...... there will be plenty of industry people who will see your talent and help you along the path. -- just make sure your stories are top notch.
but hotter, -- I couldn't resist saying that, ....and everyone else here.... you're hot too :nads:
These 1st works are normally calling cards that let producers & financers see what we can do with bare bones, you've hit the ball out of the park and smashed the big window!
What ever you do, finish this project!...... there will be plenty of industry people who will see your talent and help you along the path. -- just make sure your stories are top notch.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I think Faith's use of camera movement is particularly noteworthy. The lack of it, or at least creative implementation of it (handheld/shakycam doesn't get any extra points in my book), is one of the things I notice most often in first-timer indie features.
I recall when she posted about her research into the indie-dolly. It seems she's made quite good use of it. Then there's the car-cam and all the rest of her bag of moving camera tricks. Nice...
Motion pictures should move, they say. I agree...
I've been making a bit of a study into this lately in theatrical-level movies I've been watching, and in almost all of the them the camera is almost always in motion, even if only subtly (and it's usually not so subtle). There's a sense of the film "living and breathing" when the camera moves that tends to goes away when it stops. Sometimes you want that effect of course, but it seems the better filmmakers rarely allow it.
Faith obviously got this point quite well. She appears to largely credit the Hollywood Camerawork DVD set for it (as well as in general). Makes sense, considering what it teaches. Gotta finish watching mine...
I recall when she posted about her research into the indie-dolly. It seems she's made quite good use of it. Then there's the car-cam and all the rest of her bag of moving camera tricks. Nice...
Motion pictures should move, they say. I agree...
I've been making a bit of a study into this lately in theatrical-level movies I've been watching, and in almost all of the them the camera is almost always in motion, even if only subtly (and it's usually not so subtle). There's a sense of the film "living and breathing" when the camera moves that tends to goes away when it stops. Sometimes you want that effect of course, but it seems the better filmmakers rarely allow it.
Faith obviously got this point quite well. She appears to largely credit the Hollywood Camerawork DVD set for it (as well as in general). Makes sense, considering what it teaches. Gotta finish watching mine...
Last edited:
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Camera Movements are indeed an art form in and unto themselves.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I don't know Ted, that is one of the things that bugs me about modern filmmaking, moving the camera because we can. Being a huge fan of John Ford and Howard Hawks, I am more impressed by painterly composition and clever use of the still frame. Nobody in Hollywood has the balls to shoot in this style anymore, because the executives and marketing guys have told them that audiences expect, want and need to have the camera roaming all of the time.
What I like about what Faith has done is that yes, she is moving the camera a lot but look at her story, it's about people in cars, racing, crashes, etc. In Faith's storyline, it makes sense to move the camera around a lot because the movement is motivated by her subject matter.
What I dislike is when there are too many unmotivated camera moves that tell the audience, "wow, I am the director and I am going to Steadicam, jib/crane and dolly every shot because I am too indecisive to compose a powerful shot and hold it and let the actors do their thing". I also see this in TV as well, an un-named top 10 rating show that I work on, I laugh at a particular director because every setup is two to three cameras and he does waaay too many setups for each scene. What that tells me is that he is not a good director. If you cover every scene from every angle with camera movement on everything with dozens of takes, you don't know what the hell you are doing as a director.
I am working on a piece about John Huston right now and I was interviewing someone the other day about Huston's visual style. Half the time, he was not even looking at the scene, he would turn his head to the side and just listen. If he liked what he heard, he would ask the scripty and DP is it worked visually. If they said yes, he would move to the next scene. Many actors working with him would freak out as well because Huston would often shoot one take and if he liked it, he was moving on to the next. I agree, if you are a good director, you know when you have what you need to cut the film. You are cutting the film as you shoot in your head and if it worked, why shoot more?
I can't wait to see Faith's completed film. She seems like a filmmaker who knows what she wants and it getting it.
Dan
What I like about what Faith has done is that yes, she is moving the camera a lot but look at her story, it's about people in cars, racing, crashes, etc. In Faith's storyline, it makes sense to move the camera around a lot because the movement is motivated by her subject matter.
What I dislike is when there are too many unmotivated camera moves that tell the audience, "wow, I am the director and I am going to Steadicam, jib/crane and dolly every shot because I am too indecisive to compose a powerful shot and hold it and let the actors do their thing". I also see this in TV as well, an un-named top 10 rating show that I work on, I laugh at a particular director because every setup is two to three cameras and he does waaay too many setups for each scene. What that tells me is that he is not a good director. If you cover every scene from every angle with camera movement on everything with dozens of takes, you don't know what the hell you are doing as a director.
I am working on a piece about John Huston right now and I was interviewing someone the other day about Huston's visual style. Half the time, he was not even looking at the scene, he would turn his head to the side and just listen. If he liked what he heard, he would ask the scripty and DP is it worked visually. If they said yes, he would move to the next scene. Many actors working with him would freak out as well because Huston would often shoot one take and if he liked it, he was moving on to the next. I agree, if you are a good director, you know when you have what you need to cut the film. You are cutting the film as you shoot in your head and if it worked, why shoot more?
I can't wait to see Faith's completed film. She seems like a filmmaker who knows what she wants and it getting it.
Dan
Simon Höfer
Veteran
You may have missed a mistake on set and find out later while editing. Then you wish to have an alternative take.
Beat Takeshi
Two-Hip Shakur
Hey Faith, the clips look great. I spoke to you a while back about shooting your film for you but I'm on the east coast. I still wished I could have been able to come out there cause I LOVE the old cars and would have loved to shoot them. Oh well. You have some really nice looking shots in there and the cast looks hot. You definitely nailed the retro in this. Good luck on the film.
10s
Veteran
Ted, Puredrifting: My 2 cents on camera movement:
Camera movement is about Tension & Release. Tension & Release is about evoking emotion in the audience. Anyone familair with musical composition understands this principle. There must be a palette of dynamic polar opposites for the artist to choose from; spanning from dead still (release) to swirling blur (Tension) for full dynamic expression. Classical music uses this principle with mastery. In film the same can be used to convey emotional tone to a scene.
Example: An establishing still shot of a meadow stream (release: it will be calming), the next shot we could have a Med to CU frantic hand held shot of someone struggling in the stream, they're bleeding, soaked, stumbling and trying to make it up stream. The dynamic camera helps with (tension) while we (the audience) try to understand what is going on. Back to the still shot (release) of the meadow stream. These opposites cause even more emotional tension in us than if it was all busy camera. Suddenly the victim appears in the far distance, the camera can then start to push in on this (tension). Then a cut to the person viewing the victim. We can use movement, say a push in (tension) to emphasize the realization, something is wrong!....and so on.... The point is, by using using a mixture of static and dynamic shots (juxtaposed) we use the potential of full artistic expression available to help move the story along. Getting stuck only using a portion of the dynamic tool set limits our ability to take the audience on an emotional journey, I say we need to use all the tools when called for. The challenge is developing good judgment in the use of these tools.
For me I find it best to use a static/eye level shot as my starting reference point for shot planning, from there I need a reason to move the camera, and it must serve the story, not just to be vogue and trendy.
Puredrifting: I agree, I thought There will be Blood, used a John Ford style for some big long shots. It was a welcome relief from all the frantic tension used too often these days.
Faith, what you show looks very promising! keep it up :thumbup:
Camera movement is about Tension & Release. Tension & Release is about evoking emotion in the audience. Anyone familair with musical composition understands this principle. There must be a palette of dynamic polar opposites for the artist to choose from; spanning from dead still (release) to swirling blur (Tension) for full dynamic expression. Classical music uses this principle with mastery. In film the same can be used to convey emotional tone to a scene.
Example: An establishing still shot of a meadow stream (release: it will be calming), the next shot we could have a Med to CU frantic hand held shot of someone struggling in the stream, they're bleeding, soaked, stumbling and trying to make it up stream. The dynamic camera helps with (tension) while we (the audience) try to understand what is going on. Back to the still shot (release) of the meadow stream. These opposites cause even more emotional tension in us than if it was all busy camera. Suddenly the victim appears in the far distance, the camera can then start to push in on this (tension). Then a cut to the person viewing the victim. We can use movement, say a push in (tension) to emphasize the realization, something is wrong!....and so on.... The point is, by using using a mixture of static and dynamic shots (juxtaposed) we use the potential of full artistic expression available to help move the story along. Getting stuck only using a portion of the dynamic tool set limits our ability to take the audience on an emotional journey, I say we need to use all the tools when called for. The challenge is developing good judgment in the use of these tools.
For me I find it best to use a static/eye level shot as my starting reference point for shot planning, from there I need a reason to move the camera, and it must serve the story, not just to be vogue and trendy.
Puredrifting: I agree, I thought There will be Blood, used a John Ford style for some big long shots. It was a welcome relief from all the frantic tension used too often these days.
Faith, what you show looks very promising! keep it up :thumbup:
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Great comments Michele - really insightful and well thought out. You're obviously very educated, intelligent, and talented.
By the way, you're really HOT!
Anyway, I agree with 10s comments on camera movement which also can apply to editing and framing, not just camera movement. But, you also have to take into account the narrative and the manner in which a director wants to tell the story and manipulate the audience.
I for one, also, can't stand seeing a bunch of tight shots (such as I did recently in Frozen River) and yes, I also believe you need to give an audience moments where they can get their bearings and rest.
.
Last edited:
Michele Seidman
Well-known member
pure...i am a mature broad who has been around a few blocks so keep my point of view in perspective too! but glad to throw a woman's pov in the mix
10's...I so agree with you on this and really look forward to her finished project!
pssstttt Chris you forgot to tell me where to send the check...
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Not saying you should work this way, just saying that most of the directors that I really like worked this way, Huston, Ford, Hawks. It's an economical way of shooting but yes, you had better have a crack crew as all of these gentleman did.
Ford was notorious for taking his most difficult stunt and action scenes and shooting them once, no rehearsal. He like the terror and stress reactions he would get from his talent in these trying conditions. He was a sadistic bastard but look at the films, you can't argue wth the result. Sometimes he had errors but his storytelling usually surpassed any flaws that you would notice.
Besides, fix it in post! ;-)
Dan
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Did you see Into the Wild? Loved almost everything about it except Penn used way too many damned CUs and ECUs throughout the entire film. I could tell it was directed by an actor. Almost wrecked the film for me but I still really liked it.
Dan
Deuceofspades
Veteran
I know for sure that I don't want to sell the rights to my film. Distribution will be seeked first, if there is any interest and if I can find a deal I can live with. Festivals are next, I guess, and then there is direct sales which I think I can achieve pretty easily because of the subject matter and support I have from the car press here and abroad. Direct sales are cool cause it;s 100% in your pocket. And my pckets are pretty darn empty right this moment LOL.
But what I usually say is: I'll worry about idistribution when I cross that bridge LOL, right now I need to worry about finishing the film. if anyone has valuable pointers and info about distribution though, by all means PM me, cause this is my first time and I have a LOT to learn.
Deuceofspades
Veteran
*blush* Thank you you guys...
Just came back from 3 more days filming in the desert. It got darn cold at night. I was doing pick up shots and inserts to add productions value to my big drasgtrip scene.
meanwhile, here are a few of the more dramatic screengrabs from the film, for you... This was my first time doing DP work and all lighting was achieve for the most part with 2 lowell lights, and sometimes one extra 1K light. I work with hard light only. i find that you can turn hard light into soft light, but can't do the reverse, so hard light makes more sense for me. I have been extremely happy with my OMNI lowell lights, great lights for very small sets/ close up situations.
Deuceofspades
Veteran
It is a Nebteck/ marshall HD monitor. I fire it up with panasonic batteries, same as my camera, I found it was easier that way, I can use the same batteries for both. The monitor is very sturdy. You can throw it against a wall and it still ticks. I use a cool articulated arm to attach it to wherever I need it, and this varies from shot to shot. Usually it is mounted on the handle of the camera, but if I am shooting from up high (top of my tri-pod) then I'll mount it on my tripod leg. On occasion I have held the monitor between my knees when shooting from a car trunk for exemple.
here the monitor is mounted on the leg:
here it is mounted on the handle
Another screengrab:
Last edited:
Deuceofspades
Veteran
thank you
)Posting a few more grabs:
I love this lens and have used it a lot in my film: I call it "my secret weapon" hehehe
http://www.bettatalk.com/DEUCE OF SPADES/SCREENGRAB 32 3.jpg
robmneilson
Veteran
Hey Faith,
Man, what great work! I'm nearly finished shooting my own no budge/tiny crew feature, but I cannot begin to imagine how much harder everything would be to shoot for a period film!
When do you estimate you will be done with the film?
Man, what great work! I'm nearly finished shooting my own no budge/tiny crew feature, but I cannot begin to imagine how much harder everything would be to shoot for a period film!
When do you estimate you will be done with the film?
Deuceofspades
Veteran
That was a great post, well said from a woman's perspective.
I can't believe how positive the feedback has been, I didn't expect it. Now you have me scratching my head, because I'm like: " Boy oh boy, my film better be good now or all these people are going to be very disappointed". LOL.
For some reason I am unable to think of myself as a filmmaker that is going to go very far or a very talented filmmaker etc etc... I have seen the work of many people here and they took my breath away and I guess I am critical and feel I could always do better. I'm just a little rookie. I do know however that some pros have watched me work on the set and their reaction was when I asked them: "so, how did I do? did I do OK?" they were like: " OK is not the word, amazing comes to mind".
???? OK, so maybe I am better at it than I think... Who knows.
As far as being hot, no I am not hot. Trust me I am an old gal now and it shows (sigh)... I am afraid there will be no Hollywood hottie as leading girl in the film. Just a hotrod girl who is real and really owns the car and really drives and really works on it. I know how important looks are to the American Market especially so I am not sure how the audience will react to that. I guess we'll have to see LOL. It is the story that will sell the film and the era/cars/hotrods.
When I casted, I tried to find people that looked like the characters I had imagined when I wrote the script. I knew I wanted Johnny to be dark hair, blue eye, high cheek bones, not too built, and have a fiftie's look. Tim McReynolds fit the bill.
Now here is an interesting story. I had cast another actor, who had the perfect fifties look. He turned out to be very difficult to deal with and after a few rehearsals, a week before starting to roll, I realized he was going to make my life miserable and that I had enough trouble on my plate trying to do a period film on a no budget, and needed actors that were going to be hard core 100% behind me. So, a week before rolling, I let him go and took on Tim instead. Tim was a volunteer on my short film crew (THE PARK BENCH) and I knew he was easy to work with, hard working, a good person. He also had the Johnny look I was after. He was an inspiring actor, just arrived from Oregon, with zero track record nor experience, very green but with lots of potential. Boy oh boy did he blossom fast while in my care!!! What a great actor he turned out to be! In person he is pleasing to the eye but when I lit him and filmed him he litterally tore the screen in half. Who would have known? So this is his first ever film and he is leading man and let me just say that the part is quite challenging. Especially some of the darker scenes. Lots of emotions to radiate and he did it all with flying colors. So I switched leading man a week before rolling and started my film, right on schedule, without missing a beat or batting an eye lash
. Now that's cool.What really worked in our favor is that we have a great connection as people and that he trusted me 100%. Whatever I asked him to do, he did, exactely how I asked him to do it. he never fought me. And soon I was guiding him less and less as he literally BECAME Johnny Callaway.
This kid could go far. He is also the hardest working actor on my team, has helped with countless shoots, doing grip work, hauling gear, driving trucks, towing trailers, carrying shi*, holding umbrellas over the heads of fellow actresses to keep them from frying under the 110F sun, etc etc etc... i call him "Number One" and he calls me "My captain"
. We get along famously. During some takes, Tim gave so much of himself that he actually hurt himself.
ex: during the jump at the beginning of the trailer, when he runs at the train station and jumps over the stairs, he landed hard and sprained his ankle but did not tell me. I had him running across the station, across the rails, run and run and run for another 2 hours straight. All those shots you saw at the beginning of the trailer. He did it all for me. After we were done shooting, he no longer could walk. He then told me he had hurt himself on the first jump. he was so hard core that he ran on a bad leg just so we could get the shoot done. Now tat's dedication. Of course I had to scold him a bit for being so foolish but then I pampered the heck out of him for the rest of the day and it sure makes for a great story.
That kid has it all: The talent, the GREAT attitude, the dedication and the LOOKS. He still has to learn to show up on time at call time LOL but I guess, nobody is perfect
. When/if he makes it big I can sit back and say: "Hey! I discovered him!"Some hot shots of Tim:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Great stuff Faith. Are you editing your film or do you have an editor?
Dan
Dan
Deuceofspades
Veteran
The ONLY reason I was able to pull, this off is because I am ONE OF THEM. I own the black 1932 roadster and have been part of the car culture scene for 2 years now, very actively so. I drive my hotrod everywhere, year round, sometimes under the rain or in the cold. It has no top, no windows and currently no windshield. I have met countless hotrodders during the two years span and these are the people that have come through to help me make this film. It was STILL very hard to get period correct cars to my shoots. I am also an avid swing dancers and that is how I was able to get the national swing champions in my film as well as a large number of top swing dancers.
Getting the locations was even harder than getting the cars. Once again my friendships over the last 2 years came through for me and my total dedication, too.
Ex: the jalopy race teaser. that road with the lemon groves is a private road. It belongs to a hispanic fellow named PEPE (adorable man! We love him to pieces). I met Pepe at a hotrod run a year ago. I had bronchitis that day and quite sick. but I thought: "I'll be darn if I am going to miss a hotrod run" so I bundled up and drove out my open car and braved the cold. Got to the car show, bumped into Pepe, talked about my film and he said: "hey I have a road and land here in Fillmore, you are welcome to film there!" I had been trying to line up a ranch in that area for over 8 months, with no success. But this chance meet with Pepe solved all my problems. He also made available his daughter's ranch on which I filmed several scenes. So basically it was all "chance" meetings, (although I believe it was more than coincidence at play.) but if I had stayed home on my couch that day, none of this would have been possible.
BUDGET: I do not have one, I keep going for as long as I still have two pennies to sink in it. In the end I'll add it all up and let you know how much I spent. Feeding my hungry boys has been the largest expense, along with feeding my hungry hotrod and truck. That is, of course, not counting the purchase of the gear which in itself was an investment (but the next film won't cost me a thing cause now I own all the gear) and the filming insurance, which was not cheap, but a must have.