just finished my 1st script

[john ingham]

as above..now to put it to film

Helen, the good wife who reads a lot was well impressed,and gave a shrike at the ending...great response

lets just say..it hasn't got a happy ending

off to find some freebie actors ..local am dram i think

[fraught]

Well done on finishing your first script John. That's half the battle.

With regards to casting, local am dram is a good avenue, but i can recommend sites like StarNow.com or CastingCallPro.com... well worth using them if you are struggling to find the right person for your characters.

[john ingham]

wow!! thanks Fraught, they are great links and so many options local ...you guys are opening a new world to me....

john

[Mike Shaw]

A mild word of caution with am-dram groups - acting for the stage is different to acting in front of the camera. The pros know that, but many am-drams are not completely aware of the subtle differences. (Basically, there is a tendency to over-react to situations with on-stage performances). Otherwise - at least they should be able to learn lines and give consistently repeatable performances, which can give them a big advantage over the 'do you think Harry will do it...' option.

[john ingham]

i was wondering that Mike I have a friend who belongs to a local am dram club... Darling everything in life is an act wipes brow in an over dramatic way

I have had some interest in the auditioning, i have explained that this is my 1st short film project.. so fingers crossed ...

does this sound cheeky! I thought about getting costumes from a charity shop...its set in 2012 so i don't need any period costumes, whats your thoughts on this ?
and another question..do you reveal all the script to the actors, or just their parts .... apart from 2 scenes most will be solo scenes....also, there are not that many lines, tom the grandfather has no words , but needs to tell his side through expression and his role is of a man who is in a world of his own ..it could be through bad news or illness (you will have to wait on that one )

[Mike Shaw]

Costumes - get them where you can for as little as you can!

With regard to whether one shows the entire script to an actor or just his/her part ... I think that depends on the plot, and the kind of performance you want from them.

Sometimes children for example are 'conned' into a performance, by being confronted with a different situation creating exactly the response the director was looking for. There was one film - the name escapes me - with a child who had to register surprise and wonderment. At the appropriate moment, the director showed in front of the child something he'd been hankering for for a long time: the child's eyes opened and his expression was exactly what the director wanted for the scene. (Someone will remember the specific details of all that!).

Will the actors give a better performance if they know the entire plot, or if they're left in isolation. If the actors are being shot individually, then you could try it both ways - film first with them ignorant of the entire plot. Then explain to them the full story - show the entire script - and shoot again. Which would be best? I have no idea! But you will be able to choose...

[TimStannard]

My opinion: With two exceptions, it would be totally disrespectful not to show the actors the whole script or reveal the whole plot.

By not doing so, you are effectively saying "I'm not showing you because I don't trust your ability to act". They will bring so much more to the role if they understand the whole context in which it is placed.

Quite apart from that, how can you expect an actor (or indeed anyone in the ensemble) to commit to a project if they don't know what the whole project is about? And one thing you will need in any scripted piece is commitment. To put it in "X Factor" parlance, you need everyone involved to "own" the project.

The two exceptions are when the actor really is incapable of producing the reaction required (like the child that Mike referred to above) and when the actor specifically requests that they are not informed, because they believe they can bring more to the part by remaining ignorant.

Whilst this is not the case in your film, John, using as it does, mainly solo pieces, films are shot in the order which is most convenient for the availabilitys of locations, props, equipment and actors rather than the order the scenes will appear in the film, so keeping certain developments hidden from actors until later is rarely possible.

One area where I would recommend keeping actors in the dark though is with watching the rushes - at least until after they have completed filming their parts. The danger is they will not be happy with something in their their performance and make adjustments when filming other scenes - result: an inconsistant performance. We took this decision (with the actors' complete agreement before shooting) our current project. Now we've only got a solo piece to film, I've let one of the other actors see some of the footage. His immediate reaction was that he doesn't like some of his facial expressions - had he seen this halfway through production, he would have altered that expression for scenes he filmed later giveing the aforementioned inconsistant performance.

The alternative to this is to let actors see the shoot in layback as you are filming. The problem with this is that the actor is focussed on their own performance, whereas the director is looking at the overall performance (and the production crew are looking at composition, lighting, sound, continuity of the whole scene) and there may be conflict between what the director decides is a good take and what the actor feels is a good take.

[Mike Shaw]

Tim makes a valid point about respecting the actor's abilities to 'cope' with knowing the entire script and how he/she fits into the scheme of things.

I agree with Tim, though, like actors seeing the rushes and wanting to change their 'acting' approach to what they think they should be doing (rather than what the director wants), there can sometimes be valid reasons for leaving them in the dark.

Perhaps the answer is to ask them - would they like to know how their part fits into the scheme of things. The important thing is to get the performance you want, rather than what they think they should be doing.

On the other hand, where a 'professional/experienced' actor is concerned, they can bring valuable guidance to the table. We had that in an epic film made by one of our club members, where Brian Murphy (and his wife) had a role: in one or two scenes, his acting experience was invaluable in guiding how the scene could flow better.

[Dave Watterson]

I think Mike's reference is to Steven Spielberg directing Carey Guffy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind - the scene in his house where his mother is terrified by the lights, noises and unsettling events like screws unscrewing themselves, the fridge bursting open and so on. The child actor was too young to imagine all the special effects so to get him to look up with wonder and delight when he was supposed to see the space-craft that he liked, Spielberg stood on a stepladder and revealed a toy the lad wanted.

Some professional directors went to extremes. Sam Peckinpah sometimes made the actors playing baddies eat, socialise etc only with each other - so they would have a cameraderie he reckoned would show on screen.

Do we need to go that far ... I doubt it. But remember that for every actor, even one who knows s/he is in a minor role, the film is about their character. So it makes sense to give the impression to each of them she she or he is central to the plot ... and if the plot is good enough, they will be. Why have extraneous characters around?

[john ingham]

Once again, I thank you gentlemen ...

this is all starting to get exciting, its ok though! I am keeping my head

thats a very interesting point about keeping things back..I will sit down and lay out the basic plot to the crew/actors, I guess keeping everyone informed will be the best option, seeing the twist is in the story and not from one individual.

I am not big enough or experienced enough to not listen to others as you say...they may add something that i have over looked

thanks lads..ile keep you updated..and if you see me falter...jump on me ....

[ned c]

Some thoughts. Being both cinematographer and director is VERY difficult; I speak from experience here and suggest that you do one or the other. Similarly acting and directing unless you are Ben Afflek. The weakness in many n-c films is the sound; you will need a sound person who can get the microphone near enough to the actors but not in shot and hear those extraneous sounds; fridge going on and off; people talking in the background; distant dogs etc. I suggest the minimal crew is director; cinematographer and sound recordist.

For contemporary films we give the actors an idea of dress and ask them to bring a selection of their own clothes and the director selects the outfit. The key for selecting actors for film is their look (apart from acting skills); do they physically suit the part? Unlike the stage the audience for film is very close and you cannot pretend that a 20 year old is 50. ( I was asked to act in a film because I have a suit the director liked and white hair; he didn't care about my lack of acting skills as he is a very good director). Prevent stage actors from using make-up; a natural look works best.

Have fun and good luck; let's see the result on line,

ned c

[john ingham]

Thanks ned,

I was looking through the profiles of those who have auditioned, and right away i could see Clare, richard and tom..... i called my wife (helen) in to look (she has also read the script) she picked the same three without hesitation,
there were a few who just did not fit into what i have visioned.....

I do have a good source for audio back up, and the beauty of this is...I am not governed with time...or finance as everyone is doing it for free, there are also a few young film makers who have offered their services as crew ie holding Mic.poles, lights etc etc

[john ingham]

well i have has some fantastic replies from actors offering to work for free
and their CVs are fantastic ..they just want to be credited on the film

ned, to answer one of your points..I know it will be hard to do more than one thing ..but....I know what picture i see for every scene..its gone over in my mind a thousand times , and it scares me to let someone else have that responsibility,
I can't claim to be trained....but directing and being cameraman seems to fit together..i know that will be looked at as a no no , but i see it as the same role in one way ....the director looks at what the cameraman has shot

in my everyday job..floorlaying..if I worked for a company, I would have a lad..the lad would sweep the floor, he would carry the goods in and i would just fit the goods

in reality..i work alone, i sweep the floor, i carry the goods in then i fit them..... its a little bit harder..but not impossible.and i get to keep all the money

[TimStannard]

From my own very limited experience in this ... when I produced the first film involving more than a couple of people, the writer/director (with whom I'd spent many a fine evening over a beer honing the script and visualising and planning the shots held exactly the same view as you. Indeed it seemd logical to both of us.

Afterwards he regretted it. He realised that he'd spent too much of his effort concemtrating on what he could see in the viewfinder and not enough on actually directing the actors in order to get the best performance out of them.

On our current project, while he may weild a camera occasionally, he is working with a cameraman. He tells the cameraman what shot he wants. He may well even set up the shot. Certainly he will look over the cameraman's shoulder (or, where space permits, onto another monitor) but the key thing is he is concentrating on the whole performance, not just what he can see through the viewfinder.

There is so much to concentrate on, just to get the image correct, it is crazy to expect to be able to do that and direct actors at the same time. For the same reason we use a separate soundie. Furthermore, very often, the cameraman has pointed out things that the director has missed.

Also, we've noticed, actors resond better to a director who is giving them attention rather than fiddling with exposure, moving tripods, leveling cameras, checking light all the time.

Yes, this requires a large element of trust and when I've received the rushes (I'm editing) I've been surprised at one or two basic mistakes in the camerawork. But we're all capable of making basic errors and I suspect that if the director had been cameraman as well there would have been more of them.

[john ingham]

fair point Tim... I hope Ned didn't take it the wrong way as I did not mean it in any bad way.. i guess i am just use to working on my own....

One of the actors who loves the script has done some directing, maybe he will take over with the other scenes or at least give me input, we are meeting up soon to talk about the film

the area i will need help is indoor shooting, something i have not really ventured into, I am happy with my Field location (same as in the shooting ground) farmer has given me permission, also my friend owns a nursing home..and has given me permission to use...

just another 3 locations to secure, 1 isn't a problem. helen (wife) is also on board and is helping