The Number 1 Skill Needed to be a Filmmaker

Zachadoodle

Zachadoodle

Member
You could be filthy rich and hire a ton of people, you could use a camera completely on auto settings and rip the footage directly, you could be a kid in high school managing a set, but one thing remains that is the number one skill it is the ability for you to be comfortable in front of the camera, comfortable to work with, and the ability to make people comfortable in front of the camera too. If you don't have that ability it don't matter what type of camera you have, people are not going to put up with you. Lesson I learned the hard way.

Filmmaking because it's main user is light is grounded in reality, and like how light interacts with reality, you got to too.
 
Not sur I agree entirely. As a filmmaker, surely the ability to tell a story is the key thing? Not all filmmakers go in front of the camera or are remotely comfy with it. Some do of course. Not sure the bit about how light interacts with reality makes sense for me. You can be a filmmaker making Oscar winning features or making sales videos about washing machines - the washing machine client is not concerned with the art, just the product satisfying a need. So my No. 1 ability is telling the story - which even a washing machine video does. An ultra dull one I suppose, but there is still a beginning middle and an end.
 
After someone brought it up in another thread, a lot of these posts from Zachadoodle do seem very chat-boty. It’s one of those things that now I can’t “un-see”. But there are things that lead me to believe they’re probably not, still.
 
My vote for the number one skill is communication. I've known more than a few amazing storytellers with great scripts, people who are fun to be around, people who can capture amazing images, and I've seen their film projects crash & burn over and over. I've seen them sink too much money into projects that ultimately fall apart. It doesn't matter how good your skills in everything else are, if you can't properly communicate your vision & objectives to your entire crew then it creates frustration, erodes trust, and breeds chaos. Strong communication is essential to any kind of leadership role. Sadly, the worst communicators rarely realize how bad their communication skills truly are.
 
Run&Gun said:
After someone brought it up in another thread, a lot of these posts from Zachadoodle do seem very chat-boty. It’s one of those things that now I can’t “un-see”. But there are things that lead me to believe they’re probably not, still.
Click to expand...

I have a bit of autism and am socially awkward.
 
paulears said:
Not sur I agree entirely. As a filmmaker, surely the ability to tell a story is the key thing? Not all filmmakers go in front of the camera or are remotely comfy with it. Some do of course. Not sure the bit about how light interacts with reality makes sense for me. You can be a filmmaker making Oscar winning features or making sales videos about washing machines - the washing machine client is not concerned with the art, just the product satisfying a need. So my No. 1 ability is telling the story - which even a washing machine video does. An ultra dull one I suppose, but there is still a beginning middle and an end.
Click to expand...


Light interacts with reality in the form of photons because it is energy. It's electromagnetic radiation. If you take any camera out right now you will be able to take an image because of light being of the area you are in. It's a bit complicated to understand and I can see how it confused you, but in terms of physics, light interacts with reality like heat does and sound does.

An example of light interacting with reality is obviously the sun. The light we get from the sun has been a fundamental part of everyone's reality. As is household lights. And even the stars.

And yes telling a story would be the key thing, but actually getting the story done is another thing. It's like being a novelist and you just drop out and stop writing after the first chapter.
 
Last edited:
Bob Loblaw said:
My vote for the number one skill is communication. I've known more than a few amazing storytellers with great scripts, people who are fun to be around, people who can capture amazing images, and I've seen their film projects crash & burn over and over. I've seen them sink too much money into projects that ultimately fall apart. It doesn't matter how good your skills in everything else are, if you can't properly communicate your vision & objectives to your entire crew then it creates frustration, erodes trust, and breeds chaos. Strong communication is essential to any kind of leadership role. Sadly, the worst communicators rarely realize how bad their communication skills truly are.
Click to expand...

I think we both are saying the same thing, but in different ways. Specifically with this wording: "...comfortable to work with, and the ability to make people comfortable in front of the camera too"
 
Okay please do not get me banned. I apologize for being very abstract and confusing. I'm still trying to write clearly and coherently; it just is still troublesome for me.
 
Last edited:
I too would put storytelling in the number-one slot on this topic. I have worked plenty of times with directors whose communication skills are lacking, and quite a few who don't make much effort to make anyone on set comfortable (cast and crew alike), and yet the end result is good, sometimes great filmmaking. I personally do consider both of these traits to be important, but more overall as a human being than as a filmmaker, so at a certain point that just becomes baseline. One can be a lovely human, speak concisely and clearly about one's intentions, make everyone feel valued and create a fun and safe environment on set--and still turn in a perfectly mediocre piece of work.

One thing that I cannot bring myself to do as a director is the kind of emotional manipulation that many feted directors have enacted on their actors to elicit a particular type of performance. Breaking them down either by an inhuman number of takes or delivering harsh notes, isolating them from the rest of the cast--these tactics are not in my wheelhouse. But these types of stories have long been told, and the resulting performances speak for themselves.
 
CharlesPapert said:
.... One thing that I cannot bring myself to do as a director is the kind of emotional manipulation that many feted directors have enacted on their actors to elicit a particular type of performance. Breaking them down either by an inhuman number of takes or delivering harsh notes, isolating them from the rest of the cast--these tactics are not in my wheelhouse. But these types of stories have long been told, and the resulting performances speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

That's not in my personality either. I don't get the doing 40 takes until the actors break down. But then, I don't have an actor's brain either. What actors are willing to do for the sake of art can be mind boggling.

What I would like to learn is how to get into each actor's head so that they can deliver the performance I'm looking for or perhaps, the best performance the actor can give. What language, what cues are meaningful to each individual. Each actor takes on roles in very different ways. Some just memorize lines and deliver a great performance. Others develop a whole backstory of the character. Others read the script and don't get it at all and can't deliver what's on the page. That last one is when I need help.
 
Good one Zach. Not a chatbot.

As to what you and Charles said, they both apply, but perhaps at different levels of filmmaking. I think you are learning the basics of putting an amateur team together and likeability of the producer/director is important to putting a team together. You have to make people comfortable to have them join the team. After all, they are volunteering, so something else has to be in it for them.

At the level Charles is talking about, well, there is pay and opportunity, so the parameters change. Director X is a difficult director that abuses the actors, but the films are masterpieces. That can be a strong draw. Of course, $1,000,000+ can motivate people as well.
 
Hopefully I can get right that light interacts with reality or be a fundamental part of reality as had it not, lightbulbs, the sun, the stars you see in the sky, and even your car light would have no interaction with reality. You can mainly see this interaction in plants that do photosynthesis.
 
Paul F said:
Good one Zach. Not a chatbot.

As to what you and Charles said, they both apply, but perhaps at different levels of filmmaking. I think you are learning the basics of putting an amateur team together and likeability of the producer/director is important to putting a team together. You have to make people comfortable to have them join the team. After all, they are volunteering, so something else has to be in it for them.

At the level Charles is talking about, well, there is pay and opportunity, so the parameters change. Director X is a difficult director that abuses the actors, but the films are masterpieces. That can be a strong draw. Of course, $1,000,000+ can motivate people as well.
Click to expand...

That's correct.
 
I was responding to the sentiment Zach expressed in the first sentence of the initial post that seemed to indicate that it doesn't matter whether you are working on the biggest job or the smallest. I do agree, Paul, that on smaller jobs where the pay is little to none it does make more of a difference to be decent and treat people well. It is sad that some people view success as an opportunity to become an ass.

It's often thought that success changes people. I have witnessed this a few times and my takeaway is more that it allows them to express the dick they always were, but had to suppress with faux niceness before they were successful. This sounds terribly cynical but I'm calling it like I saw it. One actor I started working with on a TV pilot became a big name as the show became popular. We used to hang out socially in the early days, he was a sharp, funny dude. As his fame grew, he became rude and impatient with people. I remember his brother telling us early on that we all had to do what we could to reign him in and keep him real, he knew his ego would explode. He's done well overall, but he also has a pretty well known reputation as being a d-bag.

From a crew perspective, I don't expect to become best friends with a director and go apple-picking with them, but I know what behavior will keep people happy and productive. Being prepared, being able to communicate the ideas in a timely fashion (not waiting until last minute to suddenly decide they must have a bouquet of a specific flowers on the dinner table, forcing a huge scramble), being flexible and rolling with the punches--basically, not wasting people's time by failing to observe any of the above.

I have seen an interesting shift in the indie side of things which involves speeches at the beginning of the day along the lines of "the most important thing is that everyone has fun today" and "the environment on set is our main focus" and honestly I'm pretty mixed on this. It is after all a work environment, not a cocktail party or a therapy session, and on most shoots there is pressure of time and cirumstance to get a lot of work done efficiently which can create conflict (especially on lower budget projects with less experienced cast and crew) and holding hands and singing Kumbaya at call is not going to prevent that.
 
Zach - I suspect that one of the downsides to your condition is that it's very difficult for you to understand our statements, because to you it's very obvious. We comprehend different things. You said
Light interacts with reality in the form of photons because it is energy. It's electromagnetic radiation. If you take any camera out right now you will be able to take an image because of light being of the area you are in. It's a bit complicated to understand and I can see how it confused you, but in terms of physics, light interacts with reality like heat does and sound does.

An example of light interacting with reality is obviously the sun. The light we get from the sun has been a fundamental part of everyone's reality. As is household lights. And even the stars.

This is a sort of jumbling of the physics with the art. Interaction is a two way process. Electro-magnetic energy can transform into a different energy type, but in most cases, this is reaction - not a two way process. You used the sun as an example. At 93 million miles away there is NO interaction. The sun does not interact with it at all. If you put a camera sensor in a light path, then that form of energy converts to another one - electrical n this case. That's the physic version. It's not very complicated at all. Physics deals with detail. After the journey of 93 million miles we can measure the light, we can reflect it, we can refract it and we can measure and change many properties. You can't say it interacts with reality, because many folk would struggle to define reality - and many people have their own, that differs from others. If we take our world, light makes it brighter - that's a truism. The skilful and artistic video folk on here have an ability to capture images that are not just properly illuminated, but are artistic too - beautiful if you like. My skills struggle with aesthetics. I can take photographs (and do) but I would never describe myself as a photographer. I know many really good ones but I just don't have the eye. I like to think of this as art.

You talk about reality as if it is 'something' - this makes the statements subjective. "but in terms of physics, light interacts with reality like heat does and sound does." I'm still stuck on your statements - heat, light and sound interacting with something? Maybe you mean the real world, as in things with substance, but if you create the look of a sunrise and aim infra red emitters at people, and play the sound of birds waking up - that may be realistic, but it will never be reality? Clearly, Autism cause a great many people considerable stress when it impacts on their communication skills. Many folk use language that requires the person the other end to understand it the same way - and one of the things I do as a job is to adjust theatrical performances to suit audiences with many degrees of autism and other similar cognitive conditions. One of the things I struggle with are scripts that confuse. Stories with poorly constructed dialogue that generate incorrect understanding. These productions are fiction, and often have huge holes in the scripts that send people along totally inappropriate routes.

On this forum, we have continual confusion from the UK/US differences in language. In this topic, we're all struggling with understanding each other. The reality stuff pushes too far - I read it as gobbledegook. A great word. I don''t have a reality - it's not a word I'd ever use - I just have the real world.
 
Yes, in a way that is what I meant. It has substance. It's tangible in reality. As in you're using something that is real not fake. Take for example your building a Santa Claus set at Disneyland, and you feel and touch the wood, the plastics, and all the oranments to make that set. Well of course the Christmas set is not real, but you still had to use real wood, plastics, and glass ornaments to make the set. On top of that you had to find a guy off the streets who was pleasant enough to play as Santa Claus and find the right costume designer to make the Santa costume. You're using real material to make this happen. For everyone to see Santa they would need to rely on light to see him and likewise our cameras do the same the camera works like the eye. Light is real, it interacts with our eyes for us all to see.

Now imagine if it was animation, if it was animation you would just be using paints, sketches, and special drawing techniques like background replacement to get that. You would not be relying on real materials like the realness of cloth in a costume, you would have just drawn it and painted it out.

What I'm essentially coming from is that filmmaking is an artform that is hands-on.

I'm getting memories of arguing with another guy over how light has no weight to it and the guy kept on telling me it has weight. I think you can't shine a flashlight on a scale and expect to get a certain amount of pounds from it?
 
Last edited:
So you're looking at realistic fakery? I'm not sure cinematography is unique in it's need for that, and indeed, it's an established art. What I don't get what this really has to do with film making skills.

You could make a period drama by finding a real stately home here in the UK - that's easy. The snags start when you try to go indoors. The rooms, even if authentic make subject to lens distance too small - even worse if there's a big crew and lots of lights, so a simple reverse angle needs a clear and a reset because you've had to move all the furniture! Recreating that in a studio is much more sensible and best of all, you can have lights hung, wherever you need them. So many movies have done this so well we cannot see the difference between inside and outside - real vs fake, because the fake is so good - but the oscars and awards go to the set people, not the camera people. You probably don't remember Bonanza - a popular western on TV from years back. They built an entire town on the lot, and built fake hills to prevent the studio buildings being seen. I watched it on TV when I was a kid, and the fact it was fake was never in my head.

'Film making is an artform that is hands on'. Yes - I think we all agree. You just muddied the water with the interacting light stuff. Tangible in reality? You're making this stuff up again. Statements like that mean zero. Be VERY careful with flowery language. In my years in education, students always tried to fill their work with meaningless stuff like this, and it never generated any grades because it is waffle. Lacking in substance.
'I'm getting memories of arguing with another guy over how light has no weight to it and the guy kept on telling me it has weight. I think you can't shine a flashlight on a scale and expect to get a certain amount of pounds from it?' Sadly - your weight question is a disputed scientific fact - Einstein, no less stated it has no mass, and no mass means no weight, so it cannot have energy - no energy means the sun cannot possibly warm our planet. It clearly does, so scientists use this as an example of where we are missing something. If you do some science research on it, your brain will fry - I think this is why Einstein asked the question.

Perhaps you want to consider art vs the craft of film making. I lack artistic ability but have a strong craft one. Some lucky people like Charles, have both - that is why he's a person people go to, because he has both sides of the process.

The flowery language is simply imprecise. When you use it, your audience have to guess what you mean. Question for you. If I mix sand and cement, and build an Ionic column. I place it on a beach and take pictures of it. Is that picture real? If it was placed there by Disney would it be fake, but if it was placed there by a Roman, 2000 years ago it is real?
 
The number one skill for a film maker is to be able to tell the story. You don't need to worry about light. You need to be able to create a story and then communicate to to the team.
For journalist and documentary film makers that is about it. the light is largely "available light" and you have to work with that is there. Though for set interviews you can do some lighting.

For cinematography you do get to play with light and then it comes down to money and how big your team is as to what skills you need. The bigger the team the more likley you will have a an artist or technician who can work miracles in their field so you need to be able to communicate your vision to them. In a small team you are more likely to be one of the team creating with the lights, camera or audio. Then you need to have those other skills.
However no matter how big or small the team you need to be able to tell a story and communicate that story and your vision of it. Though person management is also a major skill to have.
A film maker can be a camera op but not all camera op's are film makers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top