30 Tips to Help You Make Your First Zero-Budget Short Film

1. Don't say it's unpaid. Say it's a collaboration. And don't just say it, mean it. You're collaborating together to create a piece of art out of whatever means you have.

2. Think of every single place you know that you have access to that could be a location. Think about this before the script stage. Your cousin is an office manager? Your Uncle owns a taxi? Your ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend lives in a mansion? Utilise these locations in your script/film.

3. Find creative people who will get something out of your project. Your friend is an artist? Ask if she wants to design DVD covers. Your Brother wants to be a singer? Get him to sing a song about the movie and post it on YouTube to promote the project. 

4. Related to the point above -- don't do it all yourself. Part of doing a zero-budget film is that you do need to do a lot of it yourself; but delegate! Find other creative people who want to get involved. 

5. Be confident. It's your piece of art. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece, and you don't need to be intimidated by anyone -- this is your chance to create something personal.

6. Create something personal. Write from the heart. 

7. Write to your budget. No explosions, no car chases, no burning down buildings. 

8. If you know people who can stage explosions, car chases and buildings burning down, then by all means use them if it'll help your story (but don't break any laws and don't kill any people, not even actors).

9. Don't be afraid of actors just because it's your first movie. They need the roles, otherwise they wouldn't do it! And most of them -- some of them -- are very friendly people. 

10. Cast interesting and intriguing actors. There's only so much time in a short film to tell a story; so tell some of the story through the interesting faces you present on screen. 

11. Don't hire heaps of lights and things with cables and buttons that you don't understand. Focus on telling a story. 

12. Shoot without permission. Tell people you're students, tell people you're just taking a picture, tell people you're not filming-just-pretending-to. Or my old favourite, you say, "We are thinking about doing a film so we're just coming here to test out the light and see if it's workable". 

For some reason, people will stop you from filming but they won't stop you from filming-to-see-if-it's-the-right-place-to-film. This really works!

13. Don't spend all day getting every single angle conceivable. Think about the story you're telling -- storyboard if it helps you --- think about shooting scenes creatively in ways that support your vision, rather than covering absolutely everything ten times over. 

14. Get a few takes and then move on. 

15. Start early. Don't feel bad about it. Everyone wants to make a movie so get them up early and crack on. 

16. If on day two, your actor has quit -- don't keep ringing them up, demanding they return. At the level you're at --- justified or not-- actors will go for paid work instead, or they'll think you're amateur, or they'll be lazy and stay home. Y'know what? It's happened to everyone, find a way to keep telling your story. 

17. It's not just actors. It could be anyone. If it's YOUR MOVIE, it's going to mean more to you than the others -- so you gotta do whatever you gotta do to make it happen. 

18. If someone is working exceptionally hard to help you with YOUR VISION; then treat them to something. A chocolate bar. A bunch of flowers. A new house. Whatever you can afford. These people are extremely rare. 

19. Find lovely people to work with. 

20. Don't get stressed. 

Okay, you will get stressed. But don't drag it on for hours. 

Maybe the sound guy was late. Maybe the camera is broken. Maybe the building exploded at the wrong moment. 

But what are you going to do? Moaning and stressing doesn't bring a solution. You need to focus on finding solutions to problems as they arise. 

Sometimes we get caught up in rehashing the same old problems. Telling each person, one-by-one, oh how badly we were let down by someone or something -- but it solves nothing! Be a pro. Move on. 

21. Don't have friends on set just to have friends on set. They'll get in the way. 

22. If you have friends helping you out on the crew --- then you need to be very careful about which friends you choose. 

Explain to them exactly what they'll be doing, and let them know precisely how boring it will be. Everyone loves the idea of working on a movie, but after three days in which they've done nothing but hold a boom pole, they get bored. And then that darn pole keeps dipping into the shot.

You need people who are committed. 

23. If you have scenes where characters are eating food -- build your lunch breaks around it, so that the actors are working and eating. It saves time and money. Don't tell the actors you're doing this, they'll get grumpy. 

24. Feed everyone well -- but keep it cheap. Try make it hot if you can. Everyone likes Pasta. 

25. Do not fall in love with cast members or crew members, because if they fall in love with someone else during the production, your whole brain goes funny and your feet keep forgetting where the floor is. 

This is not a good state of mind for a director. 

26. Give praise! These people are giving their time for nothing; working as hard as they can -- and they're just as insecure as you are. Giving them specific and honest praise will help them, and the set will become rather pleasant and productive-- which is what you want, right? 

27. Ignore the temptation to say, "Well we're not far behind --- how about if we wrap now and pick up the rest when we finish tomorrow?"

That's a bad idea. Do it now. Ignore the tiredness. 

28. Ignore the tiredness -- you're making a movie! Have some caffeine and go go go make it happen --- yawn when no-one is looking--- then go go go again. 

29. Tell people every four minutes that the lights are hot; because they keep forgetting and keep burning their hands. We don't know why they do that but they do. 

30. Enjoy it. You're MAKING A FILM!!!!


Tweet

Care to share?

Tweet

How To Have Authority On Set When Directing a Film

I remember it clearly, and it still kind of haunts me. The actress wanted some more direction, but she didn't look to me, the director, she looked at the actor who was standing next to me. The actor pitched in with his comments, "Yeah, you should look to the left, think about it, then shout the line as if you're really angry". 

The actress shouldn't have asked the actor what to do. 

The actor shouldn't have given her a direction.

And I shouldn't have allowed any of this to happen in the first place. 

But I was young and this happened ten years ago. Every director goes through this stage. The stage of losing control, of losing the trust of your actors, of losing your authority. Basically, it's when the actors think you don't have a clue what you're doing. 

And it hurts. 

So I'm here to tell you that you need to be confident, you need to know what you're doing, and you need to have authority. 

It's not about being dictatorial. It's about management, but more than that -- it's about creative vision. Anyone can have an idea in the room that feels great. Especially with comedy. Everybody thinks they know what is funny, there'll never be a shortage of voices chipping in, but it's of no help to you when you're in the editing room if it doesn't fit in with your vision. 

When you're making a film, it's your job, as a director, to know your characters and the story inside out.  When the actors are not quite nailing it, or they're insecure about what they're doing, they'll look to you for feedback. If you are not available to give it to them, they'll look for it elsewhere. And the worst case scenario is that the make-up artist is telling her what her character should be, or her boyfriend is giving her acting tips on the way home. When this happens, you lose your authority, you're an empty vessel.

Two years ago, I travelled across the country with the producer of my film, to read through the script with an actor who we were considering casting, and the actress who we'd already given a role to. It was going great -- and then the actor asked me a few questions about the meaning of the scene. I did what I like to do; I dreamed into the scene a little bit, allowed it to resonate with me and bring up some feelings. The producer, sitting next to me, saw what I was doing and made the assumption that I didn't have the answer. So he said, "What I think he means is, the character is really upset here, and struggling to get out his emotions." It was, of course, absolutely not what I meant to say nor did it have anything to do with the meaning of the scene. 

The problem wasn't that I didn't know what I was doing. The problem was that the producer was new to working with me and didn't know my process. I turned to the actors and said, "that's a really interesting viewpoint, but it's not what I mean at all." I then went on to explain very specifically what I wanted from the scene, and then the actors nailed it. The long journey home with the producer was rather heated as we discussed what had happened. But after that he knew not to meddle in what the actors were doing, as that wasn't his job. 

Which brings me on to an important point. We all direct in different ways. I recently wrote a screenplay for a director who loves to have ideas from all sides on the set. He loves hearing people yell out, "how about she wears a funny hat!?" or "Maybe we should film this scene with no sound!" He loves it. I am the opposite, especially with regards to the actors -- I don't want the sound guy talking to the actress about what he thinks her motivation is. There needs to be one director, that's how I work. And as I said at the beginning, it's not about being a dictator, it's about having a singular voice shaping the material. 

Take a Cameron Crowe movie. I guarantee there are moments in his films that the sound guys and the make-up artists just don't get, but then, they don't need to, because Crowe knows what he's doing. Those little subtle moments that are about a look, or a wave, or a smile. He knows what they need to be, even though everyone on the set might be thinking, "is that it?" and "do we really have it?". You'll have a lot of those moments yourself where you, as director, can see something that nobody else can see. That is what directing is, honing in on what you think is important. And when you really find something in a scene that MATTERS, it will almost certainly be the bit that half of the people on the set don't understand. At that moment, you need to be working with your actors. As long as they can grasp it, and as long as the Director of Photography knows what he's doing --- you're set. 

The title of this article is 'How To Have Authority On Set When Directing A Film'. The way to do that, is to make sure that everyone knows what you're about, how you work. If you need silence between takes so you can think, then you need to communicate that. If you need chaos, then let people know you need chaos. The set needs to be run in a way that suits your temperament. 

One of the secrets about film sets, especially when you're starting out with low-budget films, or (and especially) student films, is that everyone wants to be a director. Not only do they want to be a director, but they think they are already the greatest director in the world. The runner will want to chip in with a line change, the camera assistant will want to replace the joke about bananas with a wisecrack about apricots. You need to make sure that the people on your set are on the set to do the jobs they've been brought in to do. 

The more you direct, the easier it gets. Now, if I have a problem, I immediately deal with it by halting what we're doing and addressing the crew. Another thing that comes with experience is a reputation. When people know you can deliver, and that you have your own style, they'll be less inclined to chip in with needless ideas. And that's why I wrote this article; because you can't nail your own particular style if you get drowned out by others. There is nothing worse than losing the trust of your actors or crew on the set. It's a sinking feeling that is very hard to recover from. 

Be confident. Be strong. Make sure everyone on the set knows that you know what you're doing. 

But a few notes of caution. 

What I am talking about is artistic vision and direction, not dictatorship. If you think you know absolutely everything, you're clueless! There'll be stressful filming days when you're utterly confused. And there'll be times when it's 4am and you've been shooting for far longer than is legal, and you'll NEED the production assistant's help to remember what the character's motivation is. 

The point is to be open and transparent about what you need, as a director. It's about knowing your strengths, but it's also about knowing your weaknesses. My weakness is that I can't think on set if everyone is making small talk between takes -- my brain just can't process it. Rather than be a crazy loon who yells at everyone, I just make sure that everyone knows how I work. I have certain things that need to happen around me for me to be able to get in the zone. The more you make films, the more you'll find your own limitations and needs, and that's how you grow as a director.  

Care to share?

Tweet

GREG MOTTOLA - Film Director Interview

GREG MOTTOLA wrote and directed "ADVENTURELAND", which anyone who reads this blog will know is one of my favourite movies. He also directed the fantastic "SUPERBAD" and last year's "PAUL". His other credits as a director include Judd Apatow's "UNDECLARED" and the hilarious "ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT". He recently shot the pilot for the Aaron Sorkin penned HBO series "THE NEWSROOM", as well as numerous additional episodes.

This conversation gives us some fascinating insights into the production of "THE NEWSROOM", the difficulty of getting films made in the Hollywood system, and the struggle to find time to write when you're raising three children. Enjoy!

You've been working on 'The Newsroom' recently, is there anything you can tell us about that? It's all a little mysterious so far.

I can't wait for people to see it. It's an hour long show and it's very much -- it's much more comedic than 'The West Wing', it's a real comedy-drama. I mean, some of the drama is very serious but there's a ton of comedy. Every episode it goes through major tonal shifts, which I find really interesting.

When I first read the script I was really excited about the chance of working on it. I think Aaron Sorkin post-'The Social Network'; I think his writing has changed slightly. I think he's branching out, he's flexing different muscles. There are people who, y'know, will say he's doing what he does, which is write speeches and making characters exceedingly clever but, y'know, that's a lot of the fun of his writing and I'd hate to see him stop doing that.

It's an amazing cast -- it's sort of a mixture of people that you would have heard of like Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston, Emily Mortimer.

There are two generations in the cast, there's an older generation and then the younger people are largely indie film and theatre actors. There's this guy John Gallagher Jr who's been in a few indie films, who's fantastic, and Alison Pill who's in 'Scott Pilgrim' is one of the leads, and she's unbelievably funny.

I'd done a lot of TV back when I first met Judd Apatow, and it's fun. But for a director, with television, you always feel like the writers and producers are having more fun than the directors, it's really their medium.

I wanted to ask a question about that exact thing. Something I always find interesting about directing for television -- you've been with this one since the pilot, but with something like 'Arrested Development' where you're coming in, and the characters are already set, and the visual style; and the actors know what they're doing -- I'm always curious about what the role of the director actually is.

It's a very specific kind of skillset. There are a lot of directors I'm quite impressed by, who work a lot, who do a lot of the HBO shows for instance. They'll move around to different shows that have very different styles,  and the fact they can work so efficiently in different styles is kind of amazing to me.

For this show, it was fun, because we were doing the pilot and we were really trying to create a very specific style for the show. I hired the English DP Barry Ackroyd to shoot it. Barry comes from documentaries and Ken Loach movies, and he did 'The Hurt Locker'. His way of shooting and his eye is very documentary and multi-camera style, and it would be very different from 'The West Wing', for instance. And it was kind of a style I was interested in for this show and Barry does that extraordinarily well, so getting him involved, we approached it differently to other shows of Aaron's.

Well that's the thing -- Aaron's shows have had such a distinct visual style, if you look at 'Sports Night', 'The West Wing' and 'Studio 60' they all had that certain style. So do you think that this is perhaps a departure from that?

I think so. There are hints of it, because Aaron's writing is very romantic, and there are times when you do want to have camera moves and beautiful lighting. But at the same time I wanted it to play against it, -- it's so beautifully written, so I wanted to play against it, so it feels a little bit like you are there. Part of that is the style that Barry employs; you get far back from the actors with long lenses, and you don't have to be super precise about marks, it doesn't get so technical, it becomes about the scene -- so maybe it'll be handheld, maybe it'll be on dollies that are all moving at the same time, depending on the feeling of the scene. We'd watch the scene first. I had a sense of what I thought the shooting style might be but I really let the scenes and the acting dictate. It was a good way to break out of what I've sometimes felt TV would be, which is that you have to adhere to a formula. But you know, when I worked on 'Undeclared' with Judd Apatow I was also a little spoiled, because Judd didn't care if every episode matched the style of the last episode. He really let us come in and do our own thing. He let the directors really be involved with the writers, re-writing episodes and it was extremely creative.

And I was lucky with 'Arrested Development' because I was one of the first directors in, so the show was still figuring out what it was, so I at least felt like I was a fly on the wall to watch Mitch Hurwitz and his writing staff -- and of course, all the actors were developing the voice of the characters. I mean it was, y'know, that show was so unique.

It really was something special. There's all this talk of it coming back, I don't know what you know about that. They're doing something with it aren't they?

It sounds like it's definitely happening. Just as a fan, I can't wait to see it.

You've worked with all these really strong, unique writers, but what I find also interesting is that, with 'Superbad' and 'Paul' you directed films that have been written by cast members. I'd imagine that can be difficult. Was there ever conflict or disagreements?

It can be tricky but what I like about it, and because I also write -- writers get treated so poorly in feature films, and they get sort of kicked out the door, and uh-- the writing doesn't get the attention it deserves often. So when you have the writer on the set you can; if the scene's not working, or you come up against a problem--- like on 'Paul' we just had to constantly change our plans. Even though it was the biggest budget I'd ever worked with, we had a ton of limitations-- the CGI was very expensive, and that made our actual production budget challenging. We were shooting in New Mexico and it turned out to be the rainiest season they'd had in a decade and we were constantly having to stop and I'd have to throw shots away every day because we were being rained out. And we'd have to think, 'how do we get this?' -- It wasn't the kind of movie where they'd let us do an 'Apocolypse Now', a hundred days over schedule. [Laughs] -- no-no, you're not gonna get an extra day. So with having Simon and Nick there, we'd get to figure it out.

I have to talk to you about 'Adventureland'. It's one of my favourite movies -- and I watched again last night to remind myself of it again before talking to you-- and it's just, I don't know -- I think it's a rare kind of movie. First of all, what made you first sit down to write it, where did it come from? Did you do it for yourself or did you have a chance to make it?

I started a version of it when I was working on 'Undeclared' actually. I'd had a heartbreaking experience after I made my first super-low budget indie film 'The Daytrippers', I wrote a script called 'Life Of The Party' that got set up at Sony Pictures, and I thought I was going to get to be one of those really lucky filmmakers that gets to, y'know, go straight from indies to a personal movie at a studio.

It was a very personal movie, it was about intervention and it was a black comedy. The basic premise was, a group of friends find out their old buddy's a raving alcoholic, and living in the South of France. They all go their to save him, but they're all as fucked up as he is.

We had cast it, John Cusack and Steve Zahn were the leads and we had an ensemble around them, it had a greenlight. And then Sony decided, y'know, that the film's a little risky, a little dark. They just sort of changed their mind after a few years of pushing the boulder up the hill. While I was trying to figure out what to do, I decided to do some TV for a while because I was just dying to direct. I wasn't sure what to write next, and working on 'Undeclared' with all these young actors, writers---- and Seth Rogen was so young when we were doing that show. I started getting to thinking about writing something about young people and about that period in my life.

There was a version of it where they were high school age. And then 'Superbad' came up. Ironically it came up the week I was about to send out the script of 'Adventureland' to try and get it set up and see if anyone was interested in making it. So I just kind of put it on the back-burner and made 'Superbad'.

After 'Superbad' I changed the characters into college age, because I didn't want it to overlap too much.

Yeah.

Y'know, they were still extraordinarily immature, I mean I was still immature even after I came out of college. But I think I wanted to have this feeling that---- I hoped it would be interesting to some people to make a movie about young people, that wasn't just an out and out mainstream teen comedy thing. I mean, I loved making 'Superbad', I'm very proud of it, but I wanted to do something different. Something that I could treat more like an intimate drama.

Even though theoretically a movie about people working in an amusement park over the summer --and y'know, that's unfortunately kind of how they sold the movie, y'know, the rollicking 'Meatballs 2' comedy. And I wanted to do something that was somewhere between a teenage Woody Allen movie and an indie film, all that kind of stuff.

I think the marketing of that film is really interesting. Even when I recommend it to friends, and they ask 'what is it about?' -- whenever I describe it, it doesn't excite them. It's just one of those films I think that you have to sit down and watch to 'get' really.

Well it's hard to, y'know-- the truth is, I like things that are melancholy, I like things that are character based and episodic. I mean, I love comedies but I don't only want to make those. Especially, in a culture of giant tentpole movies it's hard to convince people to see it.

But what's been nice about 'Adventureland' is that it's had a life after its theatrical release, more-so than anything else I've ever made. I've had people tell me they saw it after the fact and were surprised by how much they liked it. Because I think people do hear that premise or see the trailer for it and think 'oh that's kids stuff', or --

--Well I remember it was just a film that I'd had on my rental list and I'd looked forward to seeing but, y'know, when it eventually came around and I got to see it I was blown away by it. I just think it's one of those films that has to find it's audience.

Yeah.

The films I've always loved and been most passionate about, tend to be by writer-directors with a unique voice, like Chaplin, Woody Allen, Billy Wilder. With 'Adventureland', I get that sense of a unique voice, of knowing the filmmaker a bit. And I wonder, does that interest you? Ideally, would you be writing and directing more features of your own, or do you think that's harder to do now?

My wife and I get to socialise with Woody, we'll go out to dinner or lunch with them a couple of times a year (Greg's wife used to be Woody Allen's assistant). And I asked him the question, just to see what he would say. I said, "do you think if you were coming up today you'd have had the same career?" - and he said "absolutely not". He thinks he was very lucky, and he thinks it's not, well, the world has changed too much. I mean, he has an unprecedented deal--- from the beginning, basically entire creative control, it's in his contract-- he won't work unless he has this control. He has more creative control than anyone outside of maybe James Cameron.

I started out just wanting to be a writer-director, but the truth is I'm a slow writer and there's a lot of things I wanted to try and I was very stubborn and turned down some potential movies after my film fell apart at Sony Pictures. And then when Judd came through with 'Superbad' I really felt that I knew how to make that movie, and I had a possibly unique perspective on it. And the script was great-- and I thought, if we get the right kids for this movie we can make something good. So my approach now, when I get sent material -- is do I have something to bring to this, that the other guy wouldn't?

I don't want to have a production company, I don't want to produce other people's movies, y'know. I don't care that much about box office, except that box office success allows you to keep working and gives you more leverage. So I just look for things that I would be good at. Of course, there are the practical realities of trying to pay the bills and -- but so far, I haven't done anything that I didn't want to do. And I've certainly passed on movies that would have made me a lot richer.

Yeah definitely.

That's not to say that I'm so great or anything. I just know it would be a mistake for me to do something that I didn't really like, because I'd probably screw it up.

But what's been the challenge, I mean, I've been dying to get back to my own writing but it's hard because now I'm a Dad with three little kids. And it's hard to carve out any time--

Are you good with the discipline of writing? I know that you're writing something at the moment -- how are you with the writing process?

Um, I'm pretty good at, yeah-- the problem I have as a writer is that I am extremely hard on myself, so I lose faith constantly. So it's just a matter of-- the only way I can do it and feel good about it is just put in a lot of hours. I'm quite jealous of people who write very quickly and churn out things that they love immediately. But I think everyone has their own path.

Greg On the set of 'PAUL'

I don't know how true this is, but a friend of mine had a long chat with Joel Coen - of the Coen Brothers, last year. And he said they spend six months locked in a room, working every day, nine hours a day, and that's what it takes for them to get a screenplay they're happy with. That actually cheered me up. When you get hired to write a script in Hollywood they give you eight weeks to write it. And I can't write a script in eight weeks, not when I'm also taking my son to school and y'know--

With my writing I actually write extremely fast -- just simply because it keeps the self-criticism away. I try and get all the writing done before I allow myself the chance to be self-critical-- does that make sense?

Yeah I mean I've actually gone more in that direction where I write and write and write, and then go back and say 'okay, what's any good here?' That can be a little frustrating when you go back and read it and realise only 20% of it is any good.

Everyone's different, but I do believe in re-writing. I think what's hard when you work in the Hollywood system is that there's a lot of impatience, people don't have faith in the process, and so they want to see stuff before it's ready to be seen, so that's always a bit of a battle.

Going back to 'Adventureland', there are so many subtle moments in it and little lines -- and you almost don't notice them. And I find that so rare in Hollywood movies. And that's the thing I think I crave, as a viewer, more than anything. I like when I'm not force fed something. Whenever there's a film like 'Adventureland', I guess I'm just surprised that it managed to get made and happen, with all these subtle moments left in it.

Yeah. I tend to write with a real eye towards some ambiguity and dryness, and there's no clear villains or heroes. There's protagonists but y'know the protagonist will often be as flawed as the antagonist. And not surprisingly when people read my scripts they seem confused--- they don't understand that there's an actual plan behind it.

My first film, 'The Daytrippers', some people, when they read the script they just shrugged and didn't get it. But some of those same people came back when they saw the movie and said they really liked it, they just didn't see it on the page. And I had the exact same reaction on 'Adventureland'.

I tried to raise the money for it in this window in between the time 'Superbad' was done, but people were hearing about it and heard good things. And I felt maybe this would help me get some money for this other thing. I got a lot of confused reactions, people would just say things like, "well we liked the secondary characters, but I don't really care about the main characters" -- or they would say "we'd consider making this but it needs to be a lot funnier, it needs to be contemporary, why is it set in the eighties?" I just decided, y'know, I'm going to make this my way or not make it at all.

That's what I find amazing, I think, is that it got made in that way, you can sense it when you watch it. When I watched it last night, what I noticed more than ever before--- I watched it almost from the perspective of Joel's character.. there's something quietly hilarious about him the whole way through. He seems to be in love with Kristen's character, or maybe he's jealous of them (of Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg's characters; Em and James). It was these little subtle relationship things that, yeah-- it's just great that you got to keep them in.

That was something that I talked about with Martin Starr, but never really made explicit in the writing. That's the kind of texture of life that I remember, as opposed to turning it into melodrama.

I get disappointed that a lot of movies-- frankly a lot of movies that I'm told are great movies and get nominated for Oscars, often fall into the world of good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. That's fine, that can be tremendous fun -- it's just not that interesting to me. I prefer a movie like 'Win Win'.

That's a great movie.

It had very very flawed characters and that was interesting.

Looking back at your first movie, 'The Daytrippers' - what are you most happy about?

It was a bit of an experiment, in form, in some way. The idea was to take this very simple premise -- a wife is looking for her husband -- and then have all these interruptions and digressions throughout, that relate to issues of familial love or romantic love. It's kind of like, theme and variation. Some worked better than others. The movie was shot in 14 days for $60,000, it's as low-budget as you get.

But I feel like, y'know, some of those ideas of people who are in denial being confronted with their reality in a very stark way comes through. I think it's a movie that gets better as it goes along.

When I was in film school we didn't have digital video, so we didn't even get to shoot that much. So, I was learning on the job. I feel like there are some ideas in it that really still work. Now to me it's a curiosity, because it's like New York City pre-internet, like y'know, people often didn't even have cellphones back then. It seems like a hundred years ago.

I haven't watched it in a long long time, but the rights are reverting back to me and the producers, including Steven Soderbergh, so we're going to try and make a decent transfer of it finally.

Do you have anything else you can add onto it -- like footage or behind the scenes?

I'll probably get the cast together and interview them all. We'll have a little reminiscence about it, they've all gone on to do really interesting things. Campbell Scott and I-- we've spent a million years working on it, but we wrote a script together that I may try to get made in the next year.

You mentioned the lack of digital technology when you began working in film. I think now, although there's great opportunities for directors because of equipment, the other problem is that, y'know, independent filmmaking is flooded with a gazillion writers, directors and actors. How do you see the next generation of filmmakers standing out?

A movie like 'Daytrippers' got a very specialised release, there were only a handful of prints made and it would show from city to city, but it finally got to an audience that was hungry for indie films. I mean, it was a small audience but the right audience.

Now, it's true, it's very hard. As someone who loves movies and has very little free time, I can't figure out which fucking mumblecore movie to see.

Exactly, yeah!

A lot of them sound interesting but some are gonna be great and some are not. Someone who's talented might have like four really good movies and one not so good movie, and I see the lesser one and it turns me off.

But it's true, there is a glut. Like you, I do love personal movies and writer-directors. I do believe in auteurs, people telling their own stories or stories that are important to them. I can feel the difference.

With this technology, there are going to be a lot of people who want to get into movies just because it's such a great job, an interesting job. And there'll be a lot of competent people. But to rise above and be the next Woody or something -- it's really hard.

I think it's tricky. When I was thinking of whether or not to do 'Superbad', I was thinking, "Will I then only be seen as a studio director?" Not that I was like crazy about film festivals and Oscars or anything like that. But when I do something that's different, will they not see it? Will they not take it seriously?

I was offered various things after 'Superbad' but I thought I have to do 'Adventureland' - for me, for my own sanity, but also to kind of say: I do this too.

I'm interested in getting your perspective, linked to what we've been talking about, on something I always blog about. For me, I guess I kind of preach this idea that it's about putting in the work, like the 10,000 hour theory. Like when you look at Woody Allen and the level of work he put in when he was younger. So y'know, it's not so much just about having talent or luck, it's about that journey you have to take.

Woody has a quote. It's something like, 80% of success is showing up. I think really what he's saying is just about doing it. People I know who are really successful are pretty much the hardest working people.

For me, like I said, my writing is slow. I just have to make the hours and do it. And say no to things I'd like to do.

Before you go -- is there anything else that you're working on that you can tell us about?

The only other thing that I'm officially working on is the adaptation of a book, that I'm writing for Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman to star in. And we'll see where it goes. I know that it's a long shot that Brad will actually ever do it.

Is this for you to direct?

It's potentially for me to direct and it's for his production company. There may be a version of it where it's Natalie and someone else. It's a book she optioned. It's been hard because of time, but it's been really interesting.

Does that add a pressure, if you think you're writing for Brad Pitt, is it better to write cluelessly and just get on with it?

It's a little bit of a psych-out, because he's so insanely famous. And I feel the pressure of wanting to write something that would interest him. But I'm not letting it color it too much because I think I'd just---

Go insane.

Yeah.

You can see my articles about 'ADVENTURELAND' HERE, HERE, and HERE. You may also be interested to read my interview with LAWRENCE SHER, who was Director of Photography on "PAUL", which Greg directed.

Tweet

Care to share?

Tweet

DIRECTING ACTORS: Multiple Takes

Sometimes you don't need to give any feedback, the actor will get it right the second time around.

When you do too many takes, everyone loses their energy. It's good to remind your actors what their character's intentions are.

Be prepared to insist on a certain bit of dialogue when an actor wants to change it. Also be prepared to disregard the script and let the actors be free. Both ways are right, just at different times.

Be direct in what you want.

Give compliments.

Don't give too many compliments.

When you've got it, get the actors to do one 'for fun'. This is usually the best take.

Don't allow actors to worry about sound issues or lighting, It's not their job.

Often, all an actor needs is a little tiny insight about their character. It's probably something tiny and obvious that you assume they already know.

Take a short break.

Don't indulge too much in goofing around laughing. Jim Carrey is funny in outtakes, the actors in your film aren't. There's work to do.

Keep a close eye on how awake the actors are. Even the best ones dip in and out of the moment, like a footballer who disappears halfway through a game.

Care to share?

Tweet

The 'Role' Of FILM DIRECTOR

I think everyone in the film industry has met directors who identify a little too heavily with the role. That's all a director is, a role, a function. People can get hypnotised by the role and become dictatorial or egotistical.

Let's be honest -- sometimes these directors get great results. But for me, the best directors are able to step in and out of the authoritative aspects of the role as and when necessary.

If a director is too strong, demanding, or Hitleristic, people suffer. The actors are less free, the crew are pressurized and the director himself is locked into a role. It's as if he's acting. Playing the role of director man.

Film directors are human beings too. They turn up to the film shoot crippled by family problems, headaches, insecurities. That's why the dictator style directing is so false, it oppresses the insecurity, the real life.

Directors have a vision. Sometimes the actors can't get there, sometimes the director of photography is adamant it should look different, sometimes you run out of daylight and everyone becomes an amateur again struggling to do anything to get the take.

There is a huge amount of psychology to directing. Are the actors feeling supported and valued? Do your crew respect you and believe in you? Great moments of artistic flow and magic are always balanced with moments of humble failure and confused insecurity.

Let's not forget: most films are terrible. Often the instincts of the director are flat out wrong. Sometimes it's a lack of talent, sometimes it's simply making a mistake in the room. You get asked "Should it be faster?", "Should the gun be in shot?" and you make a decision in the moment. You're a human being and sometimes you get it wrong.

Try as any filmmaker might, the fact remains that no director has total control. Films are living, breathing things. They're like the weather. You plan for sun but sometimes it pours. How can any director be in control when the secret to great art is so elusive?

Some of the best moments of cinema have been accidents, things that arrived in the moment. You have to be open to that. But you also have to know exactly what you want.

That's why practice is the key. In this day and age there is no excuse for upcoming directors to be sitting on their asses. Tarantino and Kevin Smith made it look like they just landed with a debut hit, but the truth is they both had previous projects which they stashed away.

Spielberg was making films at eight years old. That's a huge reason why he's one of the masters. But as we see, he doesn't always nail it. That's directing. That's art. Never stay too long with being discouraged.

The flip side is when you're precise and certain about something and no-one else gets it. The crew and cast doubt your judgement. Maybe you are certain of how to get the laugh in a scene, or how to have a chilling or tense moment. The job of the director is to catch these moments and nurture them into fruition. Sometimes; in fact, often, people will doubt your wisdom in the moment and be strong in resisting your direction.

These are usually the moments that make or break a film. If you're certain of something, if it's integral to your vision, insist on it. The director sees things others don't see. It's your job to confidently stride forth and bring it home. The best moments in my films are nearly always things that the actors resisted the most.

That's film directing.

Care to share?

Tweet

Shoot Your First Short Film In Your Home On Your Phone

Are you a first time director? Are you struggling to get funding? Here's a tip:

Shoot everything in one location.

How? Why?

• Everyone is locked in the house. 
• Everyone is locked out of the house. 
• Everyone is waiting in the house for the thing to arrive. 
• The house is where the treasure is. 

Or perhaps:

•  There's a break-up (remember that episode when Ross & Rachel spent the whole time breaking up in Monica's apartment?)
• It's the rendezvous point (remember 'Reservoir Dogs'?)
• It's the place to muse about life (Reminds me of a great episode of 'One Foot In The Grave', where Victor spent the whole time in a Doctor's waiting room)
• They're stuck there (Saw? Big Brother?)

You can't afford a big beautiful HD camera to film it on?

Film it on your video phone:

• The world is about to end, there's a poisonous gas outside, and you video it for evidence. 
• The film is about someone secretly filming someone in a house. 
• It's a video of someone doing an audition via their iPhone, when suddenly; horror-type-things-happen, or there's an argument, or an unwelcome visitor. 

Film it on your Dad's old video camera:

• It's a rare-look-what-we-found-footage-film (Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, The Troll Hunter)
• It's made to look like old camcorder footage (a film about memories, or a dead person, perhaps)
• It's a YouTube style sketch.
• It's a documentary/mockumentary

 The point is -- it's not about equipment. It's not about amazing locations. Ever seen a great viral video? We love them because they have heart. They surprise us. The same goes for short films. You don't need the latest HD camera to do something great. Pick up your iPhone, shoot your first movie.

"Perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but the best thing that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera and some film and make a movie of any kind at all."

-Stanley Kubrick

Care to share?

Tweet

Writing To Budget: Make Opportunities Out Of Limitations

You hear people say things like "I'd never shoot on anything less than a Canon 5D" or "I only work with a Red camera". While it is exciting to work with great cameras, you may find you can't afford them. Even when you can afford the rental fees, it may be that your editing system cannot handle the files.

These limitations are often daunting for new filmmakers -- but I'm here to say, don't let it stop you making a film.

Nobody wants to shoot on DV any more. People look down on it. They shot "Once" and "28 Days Later" on Mini-DV. If it's good enough for John Carney and Danny Boyle, I'm sure you'll be fine with your short movie.

Sure, maybe you want the cinematic look you get with the Red, or the beautiful crispness you get with a 5D. But this is a post for those who don't have those privileges right at this moment.

The Indie filmmaking wisdom is, of course, "shoot with whatever you can get your hands on". This is great advice but you need to take it in the right way. Most people hear that as "do the best you can" -- but I think you need to see it more as: "this is a wonderful opportunity!"

You or someone you know has a video phone. That's good enough to get started and make some films.

Here's a tip: don't pretend it's a film camera. Don't try to hide the fact you have no crew. Instead, embrace what you have and make it part of your story.

Here's some ideas off the top of my head that could inspire ideas for a smartphone-video film.

-The world is about to end and two friends decide to capture the final moments.

-Two women, for fun, decide to document their dating lives with video diaries.

-A couple staying in a hotel are convinced it's haunted, so they film happenings on their phones.

-A kid decides to secretly film his parent's marriage difficulties.

They are just ideas. Let's look at the last one; a kid films his parents arguing. The story could be the same as a bigger budget film about divorce, but filmed with just a phone it'll have a rawness and truthfulness. Plus it's filmed from the point of view of the child, which could be heartbreaking.

If you like horror, look at Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, those types of ideas you can film on your phone.

Same goes for any camera. What if all you have is your Uncle's old camera which has a broken lense? Use it! Make up a story where the characters document what happened using a broken camera.

These restraints are wonderful opportunities to overcome limitations. Use your imagination!

Films are made everyday on big beautiful cameras. But guess what? A lot of them are BAD. Equipment quality has nothing to do with how good you are at telling a story.

So go tell a story.

Care to share?

Tweet

Film Directing: Final Cut Privilege

Every director wants final cut privilege. What this means is: they have control, the final say.

There is no certain way to make sure you have it unless you produce and fund your own work, otherwise, it's a struggle.

If you're a new and upcoming film director, the concern of producers will be that, due to your inexperience, they need to have the rights to the final edit in case you mess up or don't deliver a strong ending.

Paradoxically, the more financially successful you are as a director, the bigger the budget, the more responsibilities you carry. A studio won't want to spend a hundred million dollars and then let the director have complete freedom.

It's not uncommon to see extremely great debut feature films from writer/director's, who then go on to do uninspired big budget studio films. Often, this is because they have lost the freedom, the control. The decisions are made by producers, studio heads and focus group data.

Because who should control a film? Easy for us to say "the director!". But it's the producer who gets sued if the film doesn't get delivered. It's the investors who lose out if the film is unwatchable. Even when you give a great director the final cut, he won't always make 'Annie Hall'. Sometimes you'll get 'Cassandra's Dream'.

That's why the new crop of director's cut their teeth on low-budget short films. They learn the craft and build up a body of work to prove they know what they're doing. It's a producer's job to know what sells but it's a director's job to know what resonates. You just need to decide what kind of project yours is.

If you're directing a small independent film, you need to do everything you can to ensure you have the final cut privileges. It's your attempt at telling a story, it's your vision. No producer or investor could ever know how to nail your vision. You need to hold onto it at all costs and get it in the contract. That's why the festivals and awards and YouTube 'likes' are important, they prove your talent, your understanding, your ability.

You need to build a reputation as an artist. Never go over budget, and confidently stand by your vision, otherwise you'll get eaten. Then again, the truth is that the vast majority of films aren't art, they're product. If that's where you're going, then don't worry about final cut, you'll certainly have an easier time getting hired. But you may never get to make 'Annie Hall'.

Care to share?

Tweet

Directing My Writing.

I have always been a writer/director. I could possibly be just a writer, but I could definitely not be just a director. How I am limits me in many ways. If you gave me a thirty second Dove commercial to direct I wouldn't really know what I'm doing, and I wouldn't really care. This means that the more lucrative side of directing is not really available to me. If Hollywood offers me the chance to direct Twilight 7, I wouldn't have a clue what I am doing and would have to say no. Although I might try and get a meeting with Kristen Stewart first..

I have a very strong understanding of my own writing, and I know how to direct it. I have known this, weirdly, since I first thought about film directing. I knew I would always write and direct. What I am good at is knowing who my characters are and being able to go into them and feel who they are. So, for example, if I have a character I've written called Vera; as a director I am able to instantly know what she is feeling, what she wants, and what her problems are, just by looking at the page for a few seconds. I can morph into my characters. However, when looking at someone else's script, I can only interpret them, and guess. They haven't funneled through me in the same way. And that's why the idea of directing someone else's writing or, indeed, just giving script feedback, is always very difficult for me. Because I don't really know what I'm doing, or what my instincts are. But with my own work, it's different.

Tellingly, my favorite films tend to be by writer/director's. This was not intentional, and in fact; for my formative years as a lover of films, I was totally unaware. The films that resonated with me were helmed by the person who'd written the material. Even when watching studio fare like 'You've Got Mail' - I would prefer those films to those which had hired in a director. And this was completely unconscious on my part. But in understanding myself and my interest in films and directing, it's quite important.

I love the idea of being a reader of books. But unfortunately, I find it very difficult - as only a handful of writers can hold my interest. If I consider buying a book, I have to read the first few pages and figure out whether the writer resonates with me. I think a lot of people do this, but for me, it is almost a chronic thing-- I generally don't read, as I am always disinterested. I'm interested in reading, but disinterested in the writers. But when I do come across a voice I can identify with, it's golden. Woody Allen, Saul Bellow, Roald Dahl, John O'Farrell, Joseph Heller, Nora Ephron, those are a few names and to be honest, there aren't many more. What their reputations or talents are isn't as important as; do I enjoy reading them? John O'Farrell, for example, is a writer of a few little novels that come and go without much ado, but for some reason - his work always tickles my funny bone. I find his voice hilarious. The same goes for Woody Allen. I've recently been intrigued by David Foster Wallace, and I am hopeful hopeful hopeful that he is going to be one of those rare writers who fascinates and inspires me. I have loved some of his articles and am about to order some books. I am hopeful.

I usually keep my written work hostage. As in, I don't want other directors use it. Is it because I think I have written untouchable masterpieces? Definitely not. The problem for me is that it's very hard to find directors who truly grasp what a writer is doing, and what they are saying. I write a lot of comedy; and comedy is one of the most delicate things in the world because when it's handled incorrectly, nobody laughs. Even worse, people think you're an idiot. It really is delicate. But it's the one thing I am certain I understand. I have had the experience very often on set where an actor feels they are not doing enough, or not being funny enough, or that they're doing too much, or that they're being too slow, or too fast, or too emotive ---- and the problem is that when doing anything other than comedy, their instincts would probably be right. But when you are servicing a joke, or a comedic set-up, or a delicately humorous moment, it's very rare that you find people who are completely in sync with the director. This is why comedies are rarely funny-- because not only do the actors struggle to grasp it, but so do the directors. That is essentially why I am drawn to direct. That's why Charlie Chaplin, Billy Wilder and Woody Allen all moved into directing-- because their work was being wrecked film after film. A typical director might think the punchline is what's funny; but a good director knows something more--- he knows what's funny is the hat sitting on the mantelpiece, or the line in the next scene about a giraffe, or the way Jack Lemmon holds his tennis racket.

My point is that, if I am not there to protect the material, it gets lost. There are director's who are more talented than me, in fact; I think I am, at best, an average director of film. My scope is small. When it comes to making a scene look appealing or exciting, I am not particularly skilled. But when it comes to what I've written, I think I can handle the material and the actor's performances better than anyone else could. Richard Curtis and Kevin Smith would probably say the same (about themselves, not about me.)

This is essentially why directors collaborate with the same actors for years and years (Allen/Keaton, Wilder/Lemmon), or why comedy actors produce their own work (Stiller, Sandler.) They need to protect the material, to know that they can control it because there is always a big risk of it being handled by people that don't understand it. Taken to extremes, it's why directors act in their own films, because nobody else can quite get that subtlety. Nobody else could do Chaplin like Chaplin. Nobody else can do Woody Allen like Woody Allen (we've seen many try.)

What all this means is that, as a writer/director, I have very few opportunities. Essentially, I need to raise financing to do my own work, because I am unwilling and unable to pass on my writing or to direct other people's - and when it comes time to sit down and rest, I can't even find a book I like. Not only that but, as a director, I am still looking for my Jack Lemmon, for my Diane Keaton; because it is those collaborations which essentially define a good writer/director; when they find actors who not only give voice to what is on the page but somehow become it.

Just so you know, I'm not moaning. All these reasons are exactly why I am a writer and why I am a director.

Care to share?

Tweet