What every newb filmmaker should know. (My Top 5)

Here is a good thread for a successful low budget film. So if you are a newb I imagine you will be working on a low budget film. Just trying to keep it on the thread. This is more the basics and so theoretical.

This was written in another forum.

I have pasted his initial post, there are additional posts on the the thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aka: Things Directors should know; or Why I will research a Director heavily before I agree to work for them, for free.

A bit of backstory:

I have recently been 1st ACing on a deferred payment basis for a feature shooting locally. I did it as a favour to a friend of mine who is the DP. He came on because they're paying him for the use of his Red (after the original DP quit over issues with the Director).
Having generally only worked with relatively experienced people, or at least those who have a minimum film school education, I had never encountered a situation like I did on this set, and I feel like I need to write a memo to the greater indie film world to make sure this doesn't happen on sets where crew aren't getting paid.

Don't take advantage of your crew
Your crew are giving up their time for free for you. To help you make a film. Don't take advantage of them. Thank them at the end of every day. Deferred payment is still working for free. What are the chances the film is going to make money? Probably 0. And even if it makes some money, for a large crew to get paid anything near their normal daily rate... Well, you're going to have to sell a lot. So, don't take advantage.

Stick to a standard day
In some locations, a standard shoot day is 10 hours, in others it's 12. Pick one and stick to it. Don't go over. If you absolutely have to go over it should be because you were working so hard all day and you still have one or two shots left to shoot. It should never be: because we started 3 hours late, because the Director didn't know what the shot list was, because everyone was too busy chatting to actually shoot.

Don't have a forced call
A forced call is anything less than 12 hours between the wrap (and wrap is not the time we cut the last shot, it is the time we wrapped the gear and everyone left) and the next day's call time. Going over a standard 10 (or 12) hour day, and having a forced call is the quickest way to piss a crew working for free off. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but you better have a damn good reason. If crew were charging you their normal rate, you'd be getting hit for overtime and forced calls. And you'd be hit hard. I've heard of overtime days on a forced call being charged at around $350 per hour on paid sets. Just because we're working for free, doesn't mean we wouldn't normally charge you that. It also doesn't make us any happier when we have to do it without getting extra pay.

Shooting shouldn't start until all Pre-Production is done
This seems like a no-brainer, but you can't enter Production until Pre-Production is done. Make sure you've done location recces to all your locations with your Art Director, DP and Sound Recordist. Make sure you've storyboarded what you need to storyboard. Make sure you have a complete shotlist. You can't spend 2 hours at the start of every day discussing the shots for the day with the DP, or choosing the exact spot you'll be shooting within a location.

Call time is start work time
If call time is 0800, then we should be working at 0800. When I rock up at 0745, I expect to grab a coffee, have a quick chat about the day and build the camera. We should be rolling soon after. If a certain scene is going to take longer to light, or the Director needs to discuss things with the DP, or the art department needs more time to dress a certain set, their call time should be before everyone else's. I shouldn't rock up at 0900 and wait around until 1230 until there's actually anything to do.

Have a schedule and stick to it. Listen to your 1st AD
What good is a schedule if you're not going to stick to it? If your 1st AD is saying 'we've only got 2 hours here', you need to shoot whatever you need to shoot in 2 hours. You can't just say 'oh well we can't get it, let's bring everyone back another day'. It's easy to say when everyone is working for free, but on a real set, bringing everyone back for another day is thousands and thousands of dollars extra. You need to know what shots you need to get, and you need to communicate that with your DP. Yes, that means making compromises. It might mean covering the scene in 3 shots rather than 7. That's what a Director does.

Coverage doesn't mean every scene from every angle
Audiences aren't stupid. They don't need to see (for example) a car driving, a car parking, two people getting out of the car, walking to the door, opening the door, walking inside and sitting down. You can cut straight into the dialogue of the scene and the audience will work out that they got there somehow. Not only that, but your coverage for a scene should only be exactly what you need to tell the story. You should have a shotlist worked out prior and it should be as little shots as needed to tell the story. That doesn't necessarily mean you need every single angle of the scene. And if you do want specific angles for certain lines, then you don't need to take the whole scene from the beginning to end. I was recently on set and we were shooting a 3 minute scene. We had 27 shots. That's a new shot every 6ish seconds. Not just a cut, but a whole new shot. Not only that, but it wasn't a fight scene, it wasn't an action scene. It was a family in the park with friends and some dialogue. Are you really going to use all of those shots? If they are all necessary, then that's fine. But you need to know what you're going to use and what you aren't. Also, if it means that it's going to take you 2 whole days to shoot the 27 shots, it's probably time for you to cut it down.

In extreme temperatures, you need to call it a day
Crew aren't as emotionally invested in a film as the Director. You might stand in desert heat or 0 celsius cold to get certain shots if you have to. Crew working for free aren't as forgiving. If it's freezing cold and there's no heat around, nowhere to sit down and not even coffees on offer, you need to shoot it as fast as you can, or call it. That's not the time to be spending 20 minutes discussing irrelevant things.

If you're going to argue with an experienced crew member, you better know what you're talking about
If your experience of film making comes from out-dated books, then don't start talking to the highly experienced crew you've somehow convinced to work for free about the 'proper' way of making films. Don't talk to them as if they've never set foot on a set before, or you will lose all respect from them.

Rehearsals should be done beforehand
Part of your pre should have been rehearsals. And you should have rehearsed knowing the layout, and location that you want. Knowing how the scene is going to go down in your mind. On set, you should really just be blocking the actors and fine-tuning their performance. That way, you don't waste two to three hours at the start of the day rehearsing the actors. On this note as well, you need to know everything for the scene before we start shooting the scene. If that means you need to have a notebook with you with notes on each scene, then do it. But directing of the actors should come in the blocking, then perhaps a little tweak during different shots for positions, eyelines, slight expressions in CUs. If we've shot 4 shots, then there's no use changing an entire action or direction unless we shoot those 4 shots again.

Don't direct when the camera's rolling
I see this happen so many times on digital sets (and even film sets). If we're rolling, then you shouldn't be directing. So many times I see 'sound speed, mark it, frame' and then the Director starts telling the actosr what to do, directing movement etc. As an AC I tend to call out 'still rolling' when this happens as a reminder that we are rolling. Time when we're rolling is money, and if we're working on film, I'll often work out the cost per minute (ie on a 400ft 35mm roll, it's about $40/minute) and call that out. If we're rolling we're rolling, and you should only be calling 'action'. Direction should come before we start rolling.

That's it for now, if I think of more I'll add to it. I just couldn't believe the entire attitude of a certain Director, and I hope that other people planning on making a feature will take these tips on board, before you have a mutiny on your hands, or at the very least a complete disrespect for the Director.
 
Last edited:
However, you DO have to consider what you are trying to communicate, how you are communicating it, and whether the audience has any chance of understanding that. Otherwise you are, as I said, jerking off. You are making the film for your own amusement and your own purposes, a totally narcissistic act.

Ah right, is this rulebook available on Amazon? Or do I need to pick up a copy from doesntexist.org? You absolutely don't have to consider the audience. If you want to make money you do, but you're assuming that everyone who wants to make films is doing it to make money. Allow me to explain...some people want to make films as an act of self-expression; they don't give a sh!t if it doesn't make money or people don't like it. That wasn't their intention. If people do like it (and, although you don't seem to think so, it is perfectly possible) then that's great.

If you remain true to your vision with utter disregard for your audience you'll end up being the only one that wants to watch what you produce.

What page of the rulebook is this on? I assume it's in Chapter 4, under the heading "Things That Idiots Say"? I don't know what part of your brain is telling you that a film made my somebody whose only concern is to execute their vision as accurately and truthfully as possible is going to be totally unwatchable. Where's the logic in that? You don't have to follow a crowd-pleasing recipe to engage an audience. Today I made a vinaigrette with olive oil, balsamic vinegar, white wine vinegar, mustard and a squeeze of grapefruit juice with not a care in world for the people who were going to use it to dress their salad. They loved it. I followed my instincts and my tastes and people enjoyed it. And don't you dare try and tell me my salad dressing analogy is not relevant, because you know damn well it is.


Or, you can make something only you care about or understand once you can spend 50 million on set design and digital FX and can afford to hire Charlize Theron to star in it even if her character doesn't do anything important. People will still watch to see the awesome sets, FX, and Charlize Theron.

If that's really what you believe, then all I can say is the fewer people like you in the film industry the better.


Without trying to make a personal attack...

Yeah right...
 
Ah right, is this rulebook available on Amazon? Or do I need to pick up a copy from doesntexist.org? You absolutely don't have to consider the audience. If you want to make money you do, but you're assuming that everyone who wants to make films is doing it to make money. Allow me to explain...some people want to make films as an act of self-expression; they don't give a sh!t if it doesn't make money or people don't like it. That wasn't their intention. If people do like it (and, although you don't seem to think so, it is perfectly possible) then that's great.

On the same note, however, damning people who that seek monetary gain (or even balance... read:breaking even) seems to be a bit hypocritical? Not everyone can afford--the term used literally here, to create without equilibrium or some type of financial gain.

If you can, more power to you. I don't think there's a single filmmaker on this planet that wouldn't love to create without being bound to the pound. It is what it is, if you are not wealthy.
 
Ah right, is this rulebook available on Amazon? Or do I need to pick up a copy from doesntexist.org? You absolutely don't have to consider the audience. If you want to make money you do, but you're assuming that everyone who wants to make films is doing it to make money. Allow me to explain...some people want to make films as an act of self-expression; they don't give a sh!t if it doesn't make money or people don't like it. That wasn't their intention. If people do like it (and, although you don't seem to think so, it is perfectly possible) then that's great.


Not to be dense, but if you are making an art film to match your aesthetic aren't you still doing the same thing just on a smaller scale? You are making the movie that you want to see. That was your target audience. You made decisions that the audience would want to see and made those decisions based on the audience's assumed understanding. How is that different than if my audience is 60 year old bingo players? I still have the same story I want to tell, but I may have to present things in a certain way so the previously mentioned bingo players have the right frame of reference.

Outside of that, I think it was pretty clear that the original post was focused on people who want to make a living in film. Your audience needs to typically be a little broader than yourself in that instance. And thinking through the best way to communicate the story to the audience is not compromising an artist's vision.

Storytelling requires an audience, otherwise you are just a crazy person talking to yourself. Or jerking off as has been so eloquently posted previously.
 
if you are making an art film to match your aesthetic aren't you still doing the same thing just on a smaller scale? You are making the movie that you want to see. That was your target audience.

Interesting point. In a way you're right, but it doesn't really make sense. If you are your only target audience (to put that even more simply: your target audience is one person, and that person is yourself) and that's who you're making the film for, then that's pretty much the definition of self expression. You're making the film the way you want.


On the same note, however, damning people who that seek monetary gain (or even balance... read:breaking even) seems to be a bit hypocritical?

Even if I were doing that, it wouldn't be hypocritical. What have I said that makes me a hypocrite?
In any case, I'm not damning people who seek monetary gain. I'm damning the people who think that's the only way to make a successful film.
 
Interesting point. In a way you're right, but it doesn't really make sense. If you are your only target audience (to put that even more simply: your target audience is one person, and that person is yourself) and that's who you're making the film for, then that's pretty much the definition of self expression. You're making the film the way you want.

The question is, how is that different then understanding the niche you are creating a film for and making minor modifications to fit their interests / understanding? Why is one art and one not? You appeared to take offense to the concept of doing so earlier in the thread, again a thread about the business side in the distriubtion / marketing section. You are still considering an audience and compromising the concept to fit an ideal. It may be your ideal, but to translate your mental image to film is going to require compromise unless you have a complete lack of imagination. I understand that is a bit meta, but

Film can be an art form. It doesn't have to be. It is primarily a form of communication. Cars can be an art form too, doesn't mean that is the only purpose.
 
LbSand - I'm going to be honest, I can't even understand that idea. It's perfectly written but I just can't get my head around it. It's too much of a mind-fu(k. It may also be that it's half past three in the morning here in the UK. I'll read this again tomorrow. And you're absolutely right, film can be an art form but doesn't have to be. Now that is hypocritical of me, because my original post said it's an art form! But that's why I wanted to rephrase my sentiments. Having said that, it's a case of your own definition of art. Although I don't personally believe this, if art is just creating something, then 'Mission Impossible' is as valid a piece of art as Tarkovsky's 'Stalker'. In the same way that Katy Perry's latest single is just as artistic as a Sigur Ros album. One more thing, this thread seems to have been branded as 'advice for the filmmakers who wants to make money' but to be fair the title of the thread suggests otherwise!
 
You are perfectly free to make a film that nobody wants to watch. My goal is to create something that brings enjoyment into people's lives and thus inspires therm to want to give me money.
 
You are perfectly free to make a film that nobody wants to watch. My goal is to create something that brings enjoyment into people's lives and thus inspires therm to want to give me money.

Haha, you're so narrow-minded. Once again you've failed to get your head around the idea that making a film for your own pleasure as an act of self-expression does not guarantee that nobody will understand it or enjoy it. Many people share the same beliefs, opinions and feelings and they will be able to relate to the film in that way. And oftentimes that experience can be far more evocative, spiritual, meaningful and long-lasting for the audience than a Hollywood Blockbuster that's been made to give an audience cheap thrills in exchange for their money. Both ways of making a film exist, and both have their merits. You should be able to see that. The number of people on here who think this is the only way to make a film frightens me.
 
You think Terrence Malick thought about the audience when he made those CGI scenes of dinosaurs and the creation of the universe in Tree of Life? Not a chance. It was expressive and very daring. I personally thought it was boring and I didn't understand it, but plenty of people really were touched by it. You think Gaspar Noe thought about the audience when he directed his ten-minute-long single shot rape scene in Irreversible? Well, actually he probably did. He probably thought "a lot of people are going to sickened by this", but he did it anyway. It's what he wanted to do. And that film had a really profound effect on me and thousands of others. Life changing, even.
 
Right A scene, A moment (or even several) when the director pushed the audience, absolutely, nothing wrong with that. In fact it's a good idea. However, 90 minutes continuous minutes of that would leave the audience most likely throwing things at the screen. Also, I promise you, they absolutely did think about how it would effect the audience, how it would be perceived. That or they should go buy a bunch of lottery tickets because they are very very lucky.

Also, reminder that we aren't in the "I like to make arty farty movies that nobody understands" forum. we are in the Distribution and marketing forum where it's all about
1. Knowing who your audience is.
2. Focusing in on that audience like a laser
3. Giving them enough of what they like, in terms they understand, that they will sit there through the moments when you challenge them.
 
Irreversible is 90 minutes of that. But yeah, fair enough. I'm expressing my opinions in the wrong part of the forum but at least it got a debate going
 
Yep, let's all say it together Movie Business... Movie Business...

in the US there is ONE reason a film gets made (with a budget bigger than one guy maxxing out his credit cards)... That reason is that somebody (rightly or wrongly) thinks the movie will make money.
 
Ah right, is this rulebook available on Amazon? Or do I need to pick up a copy from doesntexist.org? You absolutely don't have to consider the audience. If you want to make money you do, but you're assuming that everyone who wants to make films is doing it to make money. Allow me to explain...some people want to make films as an act of self-expression; they don't give a sh!t if it doesn't make money or people don't like it. That wasn't their intention. If people do like it (and, although you don't seem to think so, it is perfectly possible) then that's great.



What page of the rulebook is this on? I assume it's in Chapter 4, under the heading "Things That Idiots Say"? I don't know what part of your brain is telling you that a film made my somebody whose only concern is to execute their vision as accurately and truthfully as possible is going to be totally unwatchable. Where's the logic in that? You don't have to follow a crowd-pleasing recipe to engage an audience. Today I made a vinaigrette with olive oil, balsamic vinegar, white wine vinegar, mustard and a squeeze of grapefruit juice with not a care in world for the people who were going to use it to dress their salad. They loved it. I followed my instincts and my tastes and people enjoyed it. And don't you dare try and tell me my salad dressing analogy is not relevant, because you know damn well it is.




If that's really what you believe, then all I can say is the fewer people like you in the film industry the better.




Yeah right...

OK, dial it back. There's no reason to get so snippy. This borders on personal attack.
 
Agreed. I think both camps are right. It just depends on your end game.

If you want self expression - you go masturbate with a video camera.
If you want box office returns - you go by the Hollywood playbook.

Not sure what the bitterness is about.
 
I'm not spanking anyones hand but just putting in a vote for a different term to express the idea of self fulfilling filmmaking lol.
 
Back
Top