TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome to the Lights Film School video tutorial on the 180 degree rule and other shot sequencing tips. But before we begin we’d like to take a moment to show you our lighting setup for this tutorial. We always like to do this to remind you that you don’t need a truckload of lights and equipment to create strong compositions and well lit shots. Here we have a wide shot showing our scene. In this shot we’re only using two lights. We have an overhead practical light exposing our main character and a small kino flo in the background acting as a “rim light” and giving our background a bit of texture.

Here is how it looks in a medium shot with a third light located behind the curtain turned on. Now we’ll show you one by one what each light is doing. We’ll turn our rim light off so you can see specifically what it accomplishes in this scene…. Now we’ll turn it back on… It’s intensity is a bit too “hot” so let’s turn it back down to ensure we don’t “blow out the whites” around our subject… There we go… We still have a nice highlight around our subject but now the bright areas of the frame have been tamed.
Now we’ll turn the light behind the curtain off. And now back on again.

Now we’ll turn off the overhead lamp above the main subject. As you can see we are left with nothing other than a little rim around the subject, some light behind the curtain and a small splash of light on our background. Not quite enough for a proper exposure so let’s turn our lamp back on… There we go.

Okay, so let’s get back on topic and discuss the 180 degree rule.

First, let’s establish our scene geography by creating our “line of action”. Let’s look overhead to see how we establish this line. Here we draw a line towards the subject and the person or object they are in communication with. In this case our subject is reading a piece of paper so let’s draw our line in this direction. The 180 degree rule states the the camera cannot jump the imaginary “line of action”. This helps ensure your scene direction stays consistent and you don’t disorient your audience.

Now let’s see how it looks on the ground if we break the 180 degree rule. Notice if we change the camera position from here…. to here.. the image reverses like this… and gives the impression that the subject is talking to himself. In “Shot A” he’s looking camera left and in “Shot B” he’s looking camera right. This disorients your audience which for the most part, and of course there are exceptions, but you’ll try to avoid.

There are cases when you can jump the line of action. The most common reason would be when you need to establish a new line of action because the area of action has changed. For example, imagine a large group of people standing in a circle engage in a conversation. Let’s imagine that character “A” and “B” start talking, but then Character “D” has something to say. In this case you may need to break your initial line of action to establish a new line of action. A “master shot” at the beginning of this sequence will help your audience orient themselves to your scene geography so once you start cutting they will know approximately where the actors are positioned.

Alternatively you can jump the line of action by doing the following things:

You can insert a shot with neutral screen direction in between the other shots. The insert shot helps bridge the shots where you crossed the line of action and it will soften the impact of the otherwise jarring transition between those shots.

Some people call “insert shots” “cutaway shots”. Either way these shots should have substance and help push your story forward and not simply be used as a technical tool to break the line of action.

You can also cross the line of action during a take. This way the audience stays oriented with the geography of the scene because they are moving with the camera.

Lastly, you can also use a visual “anchor” to help you provide a reference point within your scene. For example, imagine two men standing stranded on an island. On one side of them is open ocean stretching for as far as the eye can see. On the other side of them might be dense, intimidating jungle. Again, as long as you establish a clear sense of scene geography during your master shot you may find you have more liberty to jump the line of action. That being said, if you don’t need to jump the line of action, you should try to avoid it.

What we’d like to explore now is a shooting and editing practice to help you add a little more dynamism to your shot sequences.

It’s often visually a little more interesting when you come back to a shot if there is a slight variation in it. It will often be the case that some emotional change or circumstance will motivate these visual changes. So let’s create a scenario. Lets imagine our character is face to face with his lifelong nemesis. Our character is reading his nemesis an incriminating transcript from a taped conversation from a few weeks ago. Our “shot A” establishes that our character is reading from a paper.

Notice that our “shot A” is a little bit “hot”. let’s turn down our rim light to tame the “burnt out” whites on the back of the subject’s head. That’s better.

Okay, now let’s start thinking about this shot. Why don’t we do two takes of the same shot from slightly different depth perspectives. Our first shot (Shot A) will be when our protagonist is going over the transcript for the first time. The second shot will be a close up “insert shot” showing the paper he’s looking at. The third shot will be when he looks up from the paper having discovered new information. For this third shot we want to be psychologically a little closer to the inner workings of our character so let’s punch in a little bit like this…. There…. That’s much better.

These shot choices and framing variations not only help you compliment the narrative thrust of your story, but they also ensure your editing and shooting style is dynamic and changing with your character rather than being static and lifeless. Remember, your camera needs to act as a sort of metaphor to things that are happening within your story.

Let’s run the scene once in a static fashion by keeping our shots A and C the same with an insert shot in the middle. this is how it will look.

Here we have shot A. Here we have shot B. And here we have shot C which is identical to shot A.

The shots side by side would look something like this:

But now, let’s change our “shot C” from our “shot A” to compliment the emotional change experienced within the scene. Again, here we have shot A. He’s looking through the transcripts for the first time. He finds a piece of information that troubles him. And so he hesitates.

We follow this up with “shot B” the “insert shot” when he looks down at the piece of paper.

Now as we come back to “shot C” he has new information he doesn’t yet know what to do with. He thinks… and thinks… The camera is positioned closer to him than it was in shot A to help bring the audience closer to the inner workings of his mind. This camera setup compliments the nature of the story better than the first camera setup did. The first example was far too static. The changes in the second example are subtle, but the impact is fairly dramatic. The shots side by side would look something like this:

Now let’s compare the two shot sequence options side by side.

Above is the more static example.

Below you’ll find the example that is much more dynamic.

TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome to the Lights Film School video on ISO

Before we begin, let’s talk about what ISO is.

An ISO setting is the digital equivalent to Film’s A.S.A setting. Simply put, your ISO is your camera’s sensor sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO speed, meaning the larger the number, the more sensitive your sensor will be to light. The lower the number, the less sensitive your camera’s sensor will be to light. Your ISO setting combined with your aperture and shutter speed work together to give you your correct exposure.

However, when shooting in low light environments, better light sensitivity doesn’t come without a cost. Let’s take a look at this image at night in the park for example. As you increase your chip’s sensitivity to light you also increase the amount of “noise” in your image. “noise” is a sort of digital degradation within your image. It manifests itself in different ways in different cameras but it has a general characteristic as a sort of digital grain.

Besides your ISO setting, heat and sensor size also impact the amount of noise in an image. There are also different types of noise. For example, “fixed pattern noise” may be caused by long exposure times. Next, “Random noise”, which is seen in this image, is the type of noise most filmmakers struggle with, and is caused by high ISO speeds. Lastly, “banding noise” which plagues some cameras more than others, may be caused when the shadowed parts of the image are lightened.

All of these different types of noise look slightly different but they all share 1 common characteristic: They degrade the picture quality of your video. Noise is usually identifiable by a bunch of flickering or moving pixels on a surface that should otherwise appear smooth.

Again, look at our park image and notice how “noise” manifests itself throughout the different parts of the image.

Now let’s look at two shots with roughly the same exposure but shot at two different ISO speeds. Notice how there is virtually no difference between the image on the right and the image on the left.

But let’s look again, and closer this time, at what happens when we zoom into the image on a larger screen. The image on the bottom-left shows a noise free image. However, the image on the bottom-right is suffering from some pretty sever noise. However, if you look above at the images those close-ups were taken from, both images seem almost identical and noise free.

This is because image noise is often subtle when viewed on small LCD screens on the back of your camera. In fact, it’s often not until you’re watching the footage on a larger monitor that you uncover the problematic issue of noise and image deterioration.

Of course noise has an impact on the small videos as well, but for any filmmaker out there with television or theatrical ambitions ISO and noise will become increasingly important for you to be aware of. As soon as you enlarge your image noise will become substantially more noticeable. So be aware of your ISO settings when you’re capturing your raw footage to avoid problems later on in editing.

ISO ‘sweet spots” are another thing you may need to be aware of for your specific camera brand and model. For instance tests, show that different ISO speeds handle noise differently. For example, on some Canon DSLR’s there is actually less noise in the ISO setting of 160 than there is in the ISO setting of 100. These are technical details you need to look into for your own particular brand of camera..

Every image has noise, but for the most part in lower ISO images, noise will appear less noticeable. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR or S/N) is the universal way of measuring the relative amounts of signal and noise in your shots.  High ratios will have very little visible noise while low ratios will have lots of noise.

Noise reduction software also exists to help you get rid of unwanted noise. For example, Neat-Video offers a great solution for both MAC and PC users. Again, it’s advisable to get as strong of a raw image as possible, but noise reduction software such as Neat-Video can help you salvage otherwise useless footage. Again, here is our footage shot at a high ISO setting of 6400 and here it is again after being run through Neat-Video noise reduction software.

One of your goals before you hit the record button should always be to ensure you obtain the best image quality possible using the lowest ISO possible.

TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome to the Lights Film School video tutorial on lighting on the “upstage” side of the camera. As filmmakers you’ll often be looking for ways to add depth and dimension to your images. One way to do this is to “light on the upstage side of the camera” – meaning the side away from the camera. This will mean that your shadows will fall towards the camera rather than away from the camera.

Before we begin let’s take a look at how this concept is used in cinema. Here we have a subject that is looking camera left with the majority of the shadow falling “towards the camera”.

Generally actors won’t break the “4th wall” and look directly at the camera. This means that one side of their face will be closer to the camera than the other side. The angles will often be very subtle, but you’ll soon find that one side of their face will be closer than the other, with only a few exceptions. For the purpose of demonstration we’re exaggerating the contrast ratio on our subject’s face but If we wanted to avoid such dramatic lighting we could always bounce some of the light back on our subject by using a bounce board or even just throw a rim light on him like “this” to give a better exposure to the downstage side of his face.

There are multiple ways you can keep your shadows towards the camera. You can achieve this look by working with flags, subject placement or light placement. But let’s start with the easiest setup. Let’s imagine we have one primary light source: A window. Because your can’t move the sun or the position of the window, this means you need to think of ways to position your subject and your camera in a way that will keep your shadows “towards the camera”. In our case, because we’re shooting in a black box studio and don’t have access to the sun, we’re using a couple of 650 watt lights from our “Arri baby blue kit” to throw some light through our curtains.

As usual, before we begin we’d like to show you our lighting setup for this shot. So let’s take you behind the scenes to show you how we setup and lit this scene.

It’s a really simple setup. We’re just using 3 lights. 2 behind the curtain acting as our subject’s main key light and 1 practical lamp hanging from the ceiling to give light to our background and seating area. So before we bring out our subject let’s light this scene.

Here is a wide shot of the studio before it’s been lit. Now let’s go to black and start to build our lighting from the ground up.

At this point you can see we’ve turned the lights on behind the curtains. We’re going to be sitting our subject on the bed so this light acts as our “key light”. The fabric the light is passing through acts as a sort of diffusion which softens the light.

Now let’s turn on our practical lamp. Notice it’s not positioned properly. We’d like the light to catch some of the flower and vase in an upcoming scene so let’s quickly reposition it so it highlights a more specific part of the frame… There. That’s great.

So that’s our scene lit. As you can see it didn’t take much!

Now let’s sit our subject in the scene. Remember that his key light is coming from behind the curtain. Just so you can see how we’ve done that we’ll zoom out so you can see behind the back wall.

Okay, let’s get back on topic. Now that we have the subject in the scene we need to find a way to position him. Since we want him to have nice side lighting on his face let’s position him so one half of his face is positioned towards the key light and one half of his face is positioned away.

Now let’s give him some action. Okay, now he’s reading a book. So we have our light positioned, our subject positioned and now we need to position our camera. Let’s give this shot a try.

This is really not a bad shot. We have a nice contrast ratio on his face, we have a strong sense of depth and a simplified colour palette. It’s not bad and it’s a perfectly usable shot. But let’s change our position so that the shadows on the left side of his face are directed towards the camera rather than away from the camera.

I like this shot much more. We still have our simplified colour palette, a strong sense of depth and nice contrast ratio, but now we have shadows that are positioned towards the camera rather than away from the camera.

Here is a similar shot with a slight variation in framing.

And here you can see all of our shots compared side by side.

Again, there are many exceptions to this rule, but you’ll often find that keeping your shadows towards the camera will give your shot more depth and a more interesting sense of dimension.

TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome to the Lights Film School video tutorial on using flags. A cinematographer once said that “Great cinematography is not about knowing how to turn a light on, it’s about knowing how to shape and mould that light”. The intention of his video tutorial is to help you understand that shadow is light’s creative equivalent.

Let’s begin by talking about what flags are:

Flags are pieces of black duvetyne held together by metal frames. Flags are generally held up by c-stands in an effort to cut or shape light and provide “negative fill”.

It’s important to mention that when using c-stands you should first position your flag exactly as you want it with the c-stand joints loose. Then when your flag is ready, tighten the c-stand joints in order to secure the precise position of the flag. This will not only help you precisely establish where your shadows will fall, but it will also save you a lot of time during your setup.

Many independent filmmakers rather than using black fabric flags and c-stands, will instead use tripods, clamps and black foam core. A large piece of black foam core can be purchased from an art supply store for around $10-$15 and it will have essentially the same impact. In fact, virtually any opaque object can be used to flag light.

Where to position your flag?

Knowing how and where to position your flag is important. A flag that is positioned close to the surface the light is being project onto will appear dark with clearly defined shadows and edges. However, as the flag starts to move towards the light source the shadow will become slightly more diffused with softer edges.

Moving your flag.

Once you have your flag in position you can start controlling where your light falls by re-positioning your flag. Here we wanted our flag close to our light to give a soft shadow with gentle edges that “feather out”.

There are many applications for using flags but let’s discuss how we can use flags to control the spill of light while filmming a subject.

Notice how we have a subject in frame and we are moving the flag back and forth. You can see the impact this has on the image. However, it should be noted that it’s easier to control flagging different layers if there is a noticeable separation of depth. So let’s pull our subject off the wall a little bit… Much better. Here you can see how the flag impacts the image as we move it back and forth. The flag’s purpose is to help filmmakers highlight the parts of the frame that are most important to them while muting the areas that are less important or distracting. Picasso even said it himself when he stated that “Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.”

But now let’s start from scratch building a shot from the ground up.

We’ll begin by turning our overhead lights on so you can see the room before we start to design our light. Now let’s walk around the set so you can see how the flags are blocking the light. This flag, directly in front of us, is stopping the 1K zip light from hitting the back wall. And this other flag is going to be stopping the light from hitting our subject. Notice there is only the smallest sliver of light shining through as we move in front of the flags. Most of the light is being completely blocked. We can now manoeuvre these flags to shape the light to our liking.

let’s go to black.

Notice how these two flags stop all of the light being projected from the 1K zip light from hitting the background. Now let’s introduce our subject to the shot. As predicted, only a sliver of light is making it’s way though the flags.

Now let’s look at what happens when we open up the background flag. Notice it has no impact on the subject who is still only being lit by a small sliver of light.

If we open up the flag on the subject the following will result.

But now let’s block the light on our subject and our background again. At this point we’ll turn on a small practical background light. We’ll also open up the flag hitting the subject so a sliver of light comes through.

Because we’re getting closer to our final composition lets now also turn the rim light on.

Let’s walk around the studio again. Here is the flag flagging our actor. Watch what happens when we move it right to left. Notice it has no impact on the background.

Now let’s look at the other flag that’s stopping spill from hitting the background. Watch what happens when we open and close that flag. Again, notice this has no impact on our subject. Having this flag stop the spill of light from hitting the background allows us to keep our background darker giving us more contrast and a dramatic and moody look. When we open the flag up the composition becomes flatter.

So now let’s punch into our final framing. Let’s look one last time at the impact that the flags have now that our rim light, background light and our key light are all turned on. Here we move the flag controlling light on the subject back and forth. Again, notice this has no impact on our beautifully lit background. Now we can experiment by opening up the background flag a little bit… But it was nicer with a darker, richer background, so let’s put that back. And here you have it… your final shot!

The idea here is to think about lighting in terms of layers and depth. Light your background, middle-ground and foreground separately by using flags to help you control the spill of light.

TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome to the Lights Film School video tutorial on framing heights. In this video we’ll discuss the importance of properly cropping your subject within a frame. Three common mistakes filmmakers often make when framing a subject are:

1. They leave too much ‘room” above the subject’s head which creates “dead space”
2. They fail to leave enough room above the subject’s head “clipping” the top of their head with the top wall of the frame. While this may be advisable for some close-up shots, this is not advisable for medium or full shots.
3. They “cut off” or “amputate” their subject at the joints of their limbs.

Let’s start by looking at a full shot.

Notice how your entire subject fits nicely within the frame. A full shot is great for providing context as well as orienting your audience geographically within your world. The full shot allows more than one character to be in the frame at the same time and it’s wide enough to allow your characters to use body language to express themselves. Notice how a bit of room is left both below our subject’s feet and above his head.

Next we’ll look at the medium full shot.

This shot is similar to the full shot but instead of cropping below the feet we are making our first cut just above the subject’s knees. Notice there is still room above the subject’s head at the top of the frame.

Next we’ll look at the cowboy shot

Enough space is left below the waist of the subject so if they dropped their hands their wrists would not be cut off with the bottom wall of the shot. This is of course helpful for cowboys who need quick access to the guns in their holsters. In non-western films this shot is equally important for subjects who simply wish to put their arms down to their sides.

Next, we’ll look at a medium close shot

The medium close shot is a great shot when you want to include even less environment and gain more insight into the emotional state of your character. Small emotional nuances may start to register with this image size. That being said, this shot is still wide enough to fit multiple elements within the frame. This shot choice allows you to multitask the character’s emotional state with their body language while at the same time giving you the opportunity to include other characters, props or surroundings.

Next we have a close shot.

This is really one of the first shots when we’ve made the commitment to focus primarily on the emotional world of our character. Notice how in this shot we’re slightly clipping the top of his head with the top wall of the composition? Let us take a moment to fix that by ensuring that the top wall rides just a sliver above our subject’s head… Much better! The actor’s face is the main tool used to convey information when you’re in this close. As we continue to move closer to our actor his body can still communicate expressiveness, but it’s the actors face, and specifically his eyes, which start to become the centrepiece for these shots.

Punching in even closer we have the wide close up

Close up shots are used to gain access into the inner world of your characters. The top part of the frame usually rides just above the top of your character’s head while the bottom of the frame includes just a sliver of the arm as it starts falling off from the shoulder.

Let’s give our character a little bit of lead room which will give him some breathing room and help ensure that our frame has a more dramatic sense of balance… There we go.

Now let’s talk about the full close up.

This shot can be tricky since the framing can quickly become awkward if we loose the subject’s eyes or chin. As a general rule of thumb you want to keep the subject’s eyes in the top 2/3rds of the frame and you don’t want to clip the subject’s chin with the bottom frame of the composition. In this shot we’ve included a little bit of the subject’s shoulders and now we’re allowed to cut the top of his head with the top wall of the composition.

A medium close up.

A medium close up will punch in a little bit closer. Notice we start to loose more of the top of the subject’s head. His chin is also getting dangerously close to the bottom wall of the frame. The benefit to this shot is that it allows you to dig even deeper under the character’s skin to see what is beneath the words they are saying.

It should also be mentioned that budget minded Independent filmmakers often like tighter shots like this because they are cheaper and quicker to light.

Now let’s move into an extreme close up.

An extreme close up goes a step further and we allow the chin to dip below the bottom wall of the composition. In this shot we frame the bottom wall just below the subject’s lips This is as close as we can get into the inner world of a character before moving into macro close ups.

Macro close ups.

Macro close ups allow us to feature a particular part of the body. For example a wrist watch, as we can see in this case. This shot is common when a filmmaker is trying to punctuate a narrative point. For instance a character walking along the side of a desolate highway at night by the themselves might hear something moving in the bushes to the side of the road. The filmmaker in this case may decide to shoot a macro close up of the character’s ear to help “punctuate” the sound.

There are no absolute rules for framing heights. Many filmmakers will simplify framing height terminology by using only three loose terms: Full shot, medium shot and close up. The definition of some of these framing heights vary from set to set. So make sure you talk with your crew members beforehand to make sure you’re all on the same page.

TRANSCRIPT:

Hello and welcome to our tutorial on Head-Room, Lead-Room and Anticipatory Framing. For this tutorial we’ll discuss all of these concepts providing visual examples along the way. Let’s begin by talking about Head-Room. 

What is Head-Room? – Head-room is the space between the top of your subject’s head and the top frame of the composition

Let’s look at our first shot “here”. Our actor is sitting and reading a paper. At first you’ll notice we’re not giving him much breathing room above his head so let’s “inch up” just a little bit so we’re skimming the top of his head with our frame. There we go. Much better.

As a general rule of thumb your subject’s eyes should be placed roughly in the top third of the composition. 

As you can see, if we tilt up further we add an undesirable amount of head room above our subject’s head. The space above his head becomes what is known as “dead space”. 

Now let’s push it to the extreme to see what too much head room looks like. As you can see our subject’s eyes are now placed on the bottom third of the frame and we have an astronomical amount of dead space above our subject’s head.



Let’s move on now to discuss “lead room” and “nose room”. 

what is lead room?

Lead room is the space where dramatic energy is directed. For close up shots, lead room will often be referred to as “nose room”.

Let’s have a look at this composition with the man looking camera right and reading a book. 

Notice how we left more space in front of his face because he’s projecting energy in that direction? 



Now let’s look at what happens when you don’t leave enough lead room.

Notice how the energy being projected forward towards camera right is being pre-emptively cut off by the right wall of the composition. There is more space behind the subject than in front of him.

Almost everything you’ll be interested in filming will have an energy to it: For example, a rolling ball, a moving car or a man reading a book. You need to take this into consideration when framing your shots. 

It should also be mentioned that these rules should be used as guidelines that work most of the time. However, there may be times when you might find creative or narrative motivation to include less lead room or more head room. David Lynch’s film “Elephant Man” for example uses an abnormally large about of head room, while some filmmakers may wish to use less lead room to give the shot a bizarre sense of balance or to purposely hide visual information from your audience. So experiment with what feels right for your story.

Now lets discuss anticipatory framing

Anticipatory framing establishes that the camera needs to anticipate the movement within a scene rather than react to it. If you’re reacting to movement you’ll generally end up with jerky, reactionary shots. You want to be able to predict the movement within a frame. This is even more difficult for documentary filmmakers who often don’t have the privilege of marking or blocking out their scenes. For this reason it’s important that filmmakers practice camera operation.

A great way to practice camera movement is to have a friend walk back and forth in the frame while you try to keep them properly positioned within that frame. Try to “feather in” and “feather out” at the end of your movements. Remember that your camera represents your audience within a scene.

You’re supposed to be creating an “invisible 4th wall” between your actors and your audience. An uncontrolled camera won’t be strong enough to support the 4th wall and instead of engaging in the story, your audience will be constantly reminded of the people standing behind the camera, which will break the illusion you’re trying so hard to create. The camera shouldn’t draw attention to itself. It should be controlled, subtle and motivated by the movement within the frame.

If you’re editing other shots or shooting on more than one camera make sure the movement and dynamism of each shot can be integrated into other shots in the scene. This is called the choreography of movement. And to us filmmakers it’s our own little ballet. So you need to figure out the “tempo” of your movement which will then in turn determine what type of dance you’re doing.

Here is an example of what not to do

You need to avoid jerky, corrective and reactionary shots. If you’re operating a camera and you make an adjustment for a framing error, simply retake your shot. Do not use these shots in your final video. A shot with uncontrolled movement will temporarily draw attention to the camera and pull your audience out of your story. Your goal as a filmmaker is to keep your audience as engaged in your story as possible. You want your stories to be creatively as well as technically well constructed.

Movement is an essential part of cinematic expression and it’s important that you don’t prioritize convenience or ease over technically well-constructed shots.

One of the things that jumped off the screen at me right away was your great eye for locations. I was also impressed that you would go to such lengths in securing a location for a short, almost photographic shot. For example your shots showcasing his interests (at a ranch, in a mansion and in a hunting field). Even though each shot is only a couple of seconds long you’ve gone out of your way to ensure a consistent and seamless integration with the rest of your shots. What was your approach to finding locations? What do you look for when you look at a space?

Well first off, thank you for the compliment and for sharing my work. I used the indie film approach: “what can we afford” and “what can we steal?!” But in all seriousness, the devil is in the details. Locations support character as much as anything else. I’m a huge fan of Wes Anderson and PT Anderson. Both don’t mind spending a single shot in a location, but there’s so much information loaded into just that one shot.

How long did location scouting take? How did you get access to such great locations?

Our editor lived near The Association in downtown LA and they were so kind as to let us shoot there during off hours and one day for free I think. My producer literally asked the manager of Cole’s next door if we could film a few shots there on the day of filming! Also for free (or maybe it was if we bought the crew lunch from there.) We stole a shot in the editor’s hotel for the fencing shot and were promptly kicked out. For the horsemanship shot we cut a deal to shoot for literally 30 minutes at Griffith Park Horse Rental. And the courtship shot was done in a friend’s back lawn. It was the same place we filmed young Handsome and his father. We had a general permit for downtown LA that let us shoot anywhere within a certain grid as the permit office called it. So, we just ran around and grabbed some shots on the day. We literally were scouting that last scene on the bridge an hour before we shot it, rushing to fight the sunset. We had to shoot both of their close ups facing the same direction because there wasn’t enough light for a reverse shot. We just made sure to move the camera over a tad to change the background, put them on opposing sides of the frame, and adjusted their eye lines. The sun and a bounce board was all we had. I recommend this trick when you are in a bind.

You start your film off on a technically complicated shot. You pull back and then light Belle while still having your protagonist seen through her tambourine in the shot. This shot really drew me in and made me curious about this project. Can you tell us a bit more about the planning and lighting setup for this shot?

I knew I wanted to visually tie the two characters together, so as often as possible I wanted them to be occupying the same frame. I’m big on having the first shot be really striking and say as much about the theme as possible. The shot was a little tricky. We had the camera on a tripod on a doorway dolly, then the actress held the tambourine still and we had the lens pointing through it with our focus marks set on Handsome at the bar. We dollied back, pulled focus to Belle and hit the light on a cue. It’s definitely my favorite shot of the film.

You also wrote this film. How long did it take you to write and what motivated you to write this particular love story?

Well, I wrote it the day before it was due in to my Project: Involve directing fellowship at Film Independent. I think pretty much in one or two sittings. I was feeling particularly cynical about the prospect of finding romance in Los Angeles and I just poured my feelings onto the page. I tend to start first with a title or theme and everything branches off from there. I think there’s quite a bit of Handsome and Belle in me. When I was done, I absolutely hated it. I turned it in and literally told the program heads that my script was awful. I didn’t show up the evening they announced the selected scripts, then my friend Graciela Del-Toro texted me and said my script was picked and she had to produce it. I’m clearly too hard on myself.

How long did it take you to shoot?

Two days, but then we did a few pick ups shots in an hour at my place a few days later.

How long did it take you from your initial idea to the finalized film?

Well I wrote it in January 2009, shot it in May 2009 and finished it in July I believe. We really took our time making it, but of course we weren’t working on it all the time.

You shot this film on the Red Cam. What made you go with this camera over the other options available?

I had used the Red One on a previous short and prefer it when working in digital. The Red MX wasn’t out at the time or I would have used it. There’s a unique quality to its images that’s quite beautiful. We shot in 4K with one shot in 2K for when Belle is walking in slow motion away from the stage.

What lenses did you use?

Zeiss Superspeeds. I remember reading in American Cinematographer how Jean-Pierre Jeunet used something like only three lenses for Amélie and I tried to model that. I didn’t shy away from the wider lenses, but I’m also a fan of long lens work. We just used primes. I’m not a fan of zooms, unless you are using it for technique like creeping or snap zooming. They do save time, but if you have a fast AC you can stick to primes. I think they look better.

I really liked how you incorporated the narrator into the story. He was both the Doctor and the Bartender. I loved his “matter of fact” approach to the story. He sort of guides you along in this strongly opinionated rant but then, in the end, he turns out to be wrong. Did you have this idea at the beginning of your writing process or was this idea something that slowly started to emerge later on?

I love narrators in films. I think my all time favorite narrator is in Magnolia. We are trained to accept the omniscient narrator as all powerful and an absolute truth. And in Handsome’s case the narrator is literally this presence in his life telling him what he can and cannot be. I wanted Handsome to sort of break the 4th wall in a non-traditional way and say “hey, I know I’m in a movie, but I don’t have to listen to you!” I feel that way sometimes. Like a narrator is dictating my life and I just want to defy it. I also like playing with the audience’s expectations. It’s funny because just a few months after I finished my short, I saw 500 Days of Summer and in a way I consider my film a companion piece. Its narration is similar.

For many of your shots you’re lighting on the “upstage” side of the camera. Was that a look that you’re drawn towards? For example: 1:13 (above) and 1:15 and 1:32 (above).

You know honestly, it didn’t occur to me until you said that. Perhaps that’s more a signature of the DP, Jay Visit. We attended USC’s MFA Film Production program together. We both were in the Project: Involve program and this was our first collaboration. You can check his reel at www.jayvisit.com and see if you spot more upstage lighting! I think the images in those shots are stunning. What I can say is that it was designed so that 1:13 and 1:15 matched up as closely as possible and for 1:32 I was very specific that I wanted little Christmas lights behind her to go out of focus and appear like stars for a little added magic.

1:18 (above) – How are you lighting this shot?

There’s an illusion of greater depth in this shot because there’s a huge mirror behind our actress in the center. The camera team was low to the ground and we did a push in on the doorway dolley. We turned the chandelier on and then added about 8 small practical lamps, one in each corner of the couches. I believe we shaped light from a chimera soft box we rigged overhead for a soft source on the actress and the table.

2:48, 2:51, 3,41 (all above) – You incorporate a strong sense of symmetry to your shots. In fact it’s kind of the visual signature of this short. What was the creative reason behind the stylistic choices you made (in terms of composition and movement)?

Wes Anderson’s “Royal Tenenbaums” and Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s “Amelie” were influences. I like their use of symmetry and wide angle lenses. I’m also a fan of the narration. I wanted the film to have a very storybook quality to it.

Your casting was incredible. How did you find your actors? Can you tell us a little about your casting methodology?

Well I had first seen the incredibly talented Angela Sarafyan in an indie film called Kabluey that I watched as part of a seminar for my Project: Involve fellowship. By coincidence, a very talented indie filmmaker friend of mine recommended her and set up a coffee meet. We had auditioned several girls, but none of them captured my attention. We were very lucky to get Angela and her career has since taken off (not because of me!). She’ll be seen next as a vampire in Twilight: Breaking Dawn.

Jason Stoll submitted on lacasting.com and when I saw his headshots I knew I had to have him. He looked like a live-action version of the human in Ratatouille. I knew I needed an actor who had the perfect look and who could emote without saying much of anything, like a silent film actor. Handsome literally only says two lines in the short and it’s the same line, “Hello, I’m Handsome”, and yet there’s so much to Jason’s performance.

In auditions I like to read actors in pairs. I had the women pretend to be having a drink at the bar and then told Jason to approach them. He really became the character in the room. I can’t wait to work with both of them again.

You have a couple sponsors for this film: Banana Republic and Vanity Fair. What role did they play in helping you get this film made? Is the film a “branded short”? If so, how can other filmmakers look for similar opportunities. Can you outline how this partnership worked?

Fortunately, the year I was in the Project: Involve fellowship we had some excellent sponsors. Banana Republic and Vanity Fair came up with the general theme of “City Stories” and they wanted the French New Wave to be our inspiration. About 40 or so scripts were submitted from the group of fellows. The talent development team at Film Independent whittled it down to 20 or so and from there we pitched our projects. My producer pitched how our budget would be spent and I showed them storyboards and visuals. Luckily my script was selected as one of 10 films to be made.

Reps from Banana Republic flew to LA to oversee the selection of various clothes from their new spring line to be featured in the films. We pretty much got a shopping spree at the BR on the 3rd street promenade in Santa Monica. All of our actors got to keep their clothes as well which was a bit of an incentive for them!

Vanity Fair advertised the short in their magazine and launched a co-branded site with BR featuring the films. People could vote for their favorite and get more info on the making of the films. I had to make a 3 minute version for their site, but on vimeo I put my director’s cut.

Here’s the branded-content site:
http://www.vfagenda.com/bananarepublic/default.asp

The sponsors teamed up with the W-Hotel to have our shorts playing worldwide on a channel in all the hotel rooms and they also threw us a classy party at the W Hotel Westwood. Don Cheadle, Catherine Hardwicke, and Terrence Howard came out to support the program and give awards to the winning filmmakers. (Nope we didn’t win!) But, I considered the whole process a win.

The sponsors were very supportive and made sure not to intrude on the the creative decisions we made. I’d still consider the film a branded content short. A matter of fact, that short lead to me being signed by Partizan (www.partizan.com).

What extra support did NBC Universal Studios provide?

They gave us $2000 in-kind credit to their grip/electric department and $2000 credit for waredrobe/prop rentals. I think we went over a bit, but got away with it.

What was the budget for the film?

That’s tricky. We only had a $2000 budget which was provided by Film Independent, but as mentioned above we also received about 6K worth of in-kind donations from our sponsors.

What is the “Film Independents Project: Involve”?

It’s part of Film Independent’s Talent Development program. I highly recommend applying to it and their other labs.

http://www.filmindependent.org/labs-and-programs/project-involve/

You don’t publish films too often but when you do publish your work it’s great. So what project(s) are you working on now and when can we expect to see your next film?

The last thing I directed was Machinima.com’s “Bite Me” web-series http://www.youtube.com/show/biteme. I’m currently attached to a feature length project that should be filming in the fall and have some branded content work I’m being considered for.

Thanks for taking the time to talk with our blog readers about your film and best of luck on your future projects!

Another type of voice over, employed by protagonists rather than omniscient narrators, is the type used commonly in hard-boiled film noir films. Here, the narrator, who is also the main character, punctuates the overall narrative by providing voiceover narration where he or she speaks directly to the audience.

As filmmaking and storytelling has evolved, both of these forms of voiceover narration have begun to feel antiquated. With writing instruction putting an emphasis on “showing not telling”, the idea of revealing important information through voiceover is at times now thought of as a cop out.

However, as we can see if we take a closer look, there are many exciting ways to use voiceover beyond providing plot points and story details to an audience.

What are some of the ways voiceover is employed that defy the traditional uses?

- Voiceover may be used as a way to detach dialogue from a particular image. This technique is used especially well in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

In this technique, the writer uses voiceover to place lines that would have chronologically been spoken at a different place or time over an image in a separate one. In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this is used to create a tapestry of time and space. It’s used very subtly in the following clip after he says “I did”.

- Voiceover may be used to clue the viewer into the inner-monologue of a character whose thoughts we would otherwise not know. This is similar but more in-depth than the traditional form of VO used in film noir and is used a lot in the Showtime series Dexter. Here, the protagonist clues the viewer into his thoughts and intentions. This is a major contributing factor in making Dexter a relatable character, and giving the audiences the creepy sensation of being on the side of a serial killer.

Writers don’t need to shy away from voiceover even in its most traditional sense. As long as the voiceover benefits your story, it has the potential to be a compelling tool within a script.

By Lauren S. McGrail

Hello Lukas and thank you for creating and sharing your film “OTEC” (Father) with us. The first thing that strikes me is that you don’t have any other videos on your Vimeo or IMDB page. Most filmmakers experience a sort of gradient of professionalism in their work. They start off by doing some satisfactory work before moving on to doing more precise work. But for a first film you’re out of the gates really strong. If this is your starting point I’m incredibly curious to know what your end point is. Was it really important for you to do a strong first film? How did you practice to get yourself to this level of cinematic precision and understanding?

I started to study film studies in 2005 – at first I studied documentary directing at the Academy of Arts in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. Later, I transferred to the Film and Television Faculty at the Academy of Performing Arts Bratislava, Slovakia. The film “Father” is actually my graduate project, which I ended my studies with in summer 2009. The time spent at school was the best time of my life. I met a lot of people there who have influenced me and still have an influence on me – amongst others my former teachers, Slovak directors, Stanislav Párnický and Martin Šulík and the Czech dramaturge Jan Gogola. Their patience and humour taught me not to take everything too seriously, to rather objectively observe life from a distance as beautiful as it is. Their approach was in accordance with my character which is rather introvert and spiritual. These people are one or two generations older than me and therefore their experience is very valuable.

Slovakia lies in the heart of Europe. However, our history has been influenced by the ideology of the former eastern bloc. We, as the Slavs, are a thoughtful nation who can give a lot to the present world. We actually are a kind of a link between the western and eastern ideology, in spite of the fact that we ourselves have our own problems (not surprisingly) connected with human greed and egoism.

Until the fall of socialism, the censorship was trying to limit the influence of the western culture, which meant that our cinematography has been labelled as eastern European cinematography. However, this isolation meant the exact opposite. Film directors such as Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Wajda and others became respected and valued filmmakers throughout the whole world. Their films were not made to earn money, as it is today, but they were and still are valuable works of art. The film, thanks to its universal language, is the best bearer of higher ideas – it lets life, however cruel it might be, to stand out and gives hope to people in this way – hope for a better world. This is what I value the most about films and I would like to contribute to this through my work. Whether it is my first or my last work of art, it has to have a common aim – to celebrate life with all its inevitable contradictions. However, my film “father” who has had the biggest influence on me and thanks to whom I have decided to study film studies, paradoxically does not come from a country from the former eastern bloc. It is Terrence Malick who I hope to meet one day.

You shot this film on the RED ONE camera. Why did you make this choice?

My original intention was to shoot the film Father on film material – with a 16mm camera. In 2008, shortly before the shooting itself, I got into contact with the camera RED ONE. Considering our low budget (30,000 EUR) and the shooting style (together with the director of photography, Ivo Miko, we did not use the story-board and to a great extent we let ourselves be influenced by the surroundings and situations resulting from it) we finally decided to use digital shooting in 4k quality with 35mm lenses. The film material would cost us much more and therefore our choice was clearly rational. The FilmPark company, who we rented the camera from, became a co-producer and so we paid only for one day instead of for 14 shooting days for renting the camera. Therefore I would like to address my special thanks to them, because they clearly did not do so out of economical reasons.

You’ve created a beautiful opening shot. What did you use to stabilize the camera for this shot?

The introductory take is quiet simple. We used a classic, approximately 10-metre dolly on which the camera was at a 90-degree upward position. The night changing into the morning was finished by postproduction. We neither had time nor money for other technologies. We have put a lot of effort into postproduction. Before the shooting, we spoke to the advertisement postproduction studio Framehouse, which did a very good job for a symbolic fee; if they had charged us a standard fee, our whole budget would not be sufficient. Today I can say that we were lucky to work with unselfish people who had decided to help us. This film therefore is dedicated to them as well.

Your shot around 2:40 (above – mother in boat) is very atmospheric and well lit. Are you using only natural light for these shots? Did you plan on having the subtle fog in the background? It seems like such a beautiful and rare environmental moment (the backlight, the stillness of the water, the fog etc) that it seems like you must have planned this shot around these specific conditions. Did you need to wait for the right day to shoot this scene? Same with the shot at 10:52 (above – lake) and 34:45 (above – walking through fog). Was this fog real?

Concerning the atmospheric conditions and weather, we were extremely lucky. Neither could we afford to postpone the shooting, nor to wait for ideal conditions. The film was shot mostly at the end of August and the beginning of September at a sea near Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. We used mainly natural light for the day exterior shots. The mild fog surrounding the boat was natural; we shot the scene with the mother and little Adam early in the morning when a mild mist was floating over the sea. This as a result makes a magical impression and emphasizes the retrospective sequences of the father and the adult Adam. The next scene with the sea and the rising sun had to be finished in postproduction because the sun was hidden by clouds the day when we planned to shoot it. The result looks natural which, of course, I am satisfied with. The scene in which we see the father walk with his dead wife surrounded by fog was for a change a trick realized on the set. We used a sulphur powder which when burning and under fair weather conditions creates a feeling for a while that one is in a magical forest. By this I wanted to emphasize the transcendental, higher reality in which the character of the father found himself at the end of the film. He was with his wife in his memories and dreams all the time. He has never left her.

You walk a very fine line as a filmmaker having some of your shots meticulously well designed and romanticized with perfectly executed compositions, movement, lighting and styling. Yet, other shots are much more naturalistic. For example, your opening sequence is very photographic. A large part of your efforts went into the framing and choreography of that shot, then once inside the fathers house you seem a little more “loose” with your compositions. How much of your film is actually designed though? For example the shot at 31:20 (above). Were the curtains, chair and the rest of the furniture already there or did you conceptualize all of this and work with a designer to create this world?

The world we created was not complicated. This applies to costumes and the production design itself. The house in which we shot was completely empty, so we had to furnish it completely. We had to repair the electricity, install lights, put curtains on the windows etc. My main condition was to use natural materials and old rustic style furniture. I wanted to have the impression that the character of the mother furnished the cottage with all the details and little things that only women can make up. That is why the interiors were furnished by women, who had not had much experience with film, but they had sense and big imagination – and that was enough for me. I applied the same principle on the costume. We used mostly our own clothes or clothes borrowed from friends.

The biggest problem for us was the boat. We were trying to get a wooden boat for several weeks; we did not have money for a new one, so we went to fishing settlements and tried to persuade the local fishermen to lend us one. Finally we found a fisherman who sold us two old boats for chicken feed (150 EUR). But here’s the rub: One of the boats had a hole and could be used only for scenes on the lakefront. The other boat…had a hole too. That happened two days before the beginning of the shooting. Finally we managed to repair it somehow. However, the boat was floating only for about 20 minutes then it would go down. Water was getting in it the whole time. I could not sleep at night because of it. We had to risk it and shoot despite all the potential risks. Fortunately, nothing bad happened to anybody.

I noticed at the end of your film you included the line “dedicated to my father”. I’m assuming this story is something that you hold very dear to your heart. As filmmakers we’re always putting parts of ourselves into our stories, but often filmmakers try to hide or at least disguise their own involvement in their stories. You explicitly state at the end of your film that this is a story that has relevance in your family. “Father” really moved me. In fact there was a moment just before the the climax that brought me to tears. I can’t help but feel that there is a strong current of honesty running through this film. Without asking you to share your personal history, can you tell us a little bit more about what made you want to tell such a personal story?

I grew up in a beautiful but poor region in the north of Slovakia. The most important thing for both of my parents was to support the family and survive another month. When one is alone and is not responsible for anybody else it is easy. But when one has two little children, the responsibility is incomparable. My brother and I got the best upbringing we could get. We had just a little but nevertheless we had so much. Our father has brought us up to be honest and responsible and our mother taught us about feelings and love. Both of them dedicated their whole lives to their children. That is the biggest sacrifice one can do – to give up your life for someone else. To dedicate a film to someone is nothing compared to it. It does not cost anything. But I have to admit that the biggest motivation to finish the film after 3 years of shooting was the idea of how my father would read the subtitle “dedicated to my father” at the end of the film. And it happened. It is called being overwhelmed by being overwhelmed. But now I have to dedicate a film to my mother to keep balance .

How long did it take you to write the script?

The writing of the script, or better said of some versions of the script, lasted more than two years. I have torn it into pieces several times because it always seemed stupid to me after some time. Finally I have managed to write the final version thanks to my pedagogues. The film has been cut totally different as it was written because it simply would not work as it should. This is the hardest part in the work of an artist – to leave your old idea, which is strongly anchored in your head and let a new one form.

The shooting itself lasted for one year. Because of the finances we had to divide the shooting into four sections. We managed to shoot most of the film in summer; we shot the summer interiors of the cottage in fall, the final part of the film in winter and then the summer interiors of the apartment in spring. We cut the film in about ten days in my friend´s small apartment; the sound postproduction together with the recording of the sound was finished in about two weeks. The hardest thing was to get money for the final trick postproduction which we needed 1,000 EUR for. The bank was not willing to give any loan, as I was a student and I had already owed money to my friends. Most of the millionaires and businessmen who we met have sent us away with a smile on their faces or they did not even pick up the phone. After several months of desperate searching we have found Mr Kováčik, owner of a big production company, who has paid for the postproduction. After three years the film was finally finished. However, we were paying back the debts which we had after this film for another year. Since then I have been claiming that persistence and patience are the most important characteristics of a filmmaker.

How big of a part did wardrobe play in your film?

The costume designer Katka Žgančíkova and I were trying to show the life of the main characters as realistically as possible. Although we focused on the characters which had been defined even before the shooting, we adapted to the typology and nature of the actors. But as I have already mentioned, the world we had created was not complicated. It is based on what life has offered us.

I love the shot at 11:39 (above). I notice you like being high with your camera. Can you explain that decision? Also that shot was one long take! What rig did you have your camera on?

First and foremost, the film is a visual experience for me. I love silent films which are able to tell a story without using a dialog. When watching a film as a viewer I like to put the film as a unit together and surmise more than is said – according to Tarkovsky – it is the only way which in the process of the perception of a film puts the viewer on the same level as the artists. I do not like when the viewer is treated as if he was stupid and when every little thing is explained to him, otherwise he would not understand the film. Other examples are the mise-en-scene or long scenes, which the viewer subconsciously studies and reveals important information for him. In this case I wanted to tell something more about the surroundings through this whole scene, but also about the characters and their relationship. It does not only seem real, it is also a challenge for the actors who have to focus not only on the acting but also on the movement of the camera. And this is not easy. The scene was shot with an about 8 meters long Jimmy Jib.

The location at 12:00 (above) is very iconic. When I think about your film these trees come to mind. Can you tell us a little about your location scouting philosophy? How do you look at space?

Our task was to find a beautiful cottage at a lake. It was not easy because most of the cottages we had found were not suitable. Besides, none of them were close to the lake. In the end, the surrounding of the forest and the beach with the roots of the trees persuaded me. When we had found it, I knew this was the right place. We managed to find the owner of the cottage and agree on a low rent. During the shooting most of the crew slept in the interiors of the cottage, some on beds, others in sleeping bags on the floor or in tents outside. I slept in the bed of little Adam where one could neither lie nor sleep properly. Besides, the whole cast and crew sat at the fireplace at night after the shooting, we had something to eat and drink and talked for a few hours. It was pleasant but unfortunately sometimes also painful in the morning. All the other locations were in Bratislava which is very suitable for shooting a film. We chose visually interesting locations but in the end the price we had to pay, was the most important criterion. But we were lucky and did not have to pay for most of the locations. This is the proof that still there are people whose only and foremost motivation is not money and this makes me happy because this is how it is supposed to be.

“Father” Is a very thinly scripted story. How did you communicate with the actors or other crew who may have a difficult time envisioning the narrative thrust of the story? You use silence a lot and that can be difficult for some people (both in front and behind the camera) to interpret. How did you effectively communicate the arc of these scenes with your cast and crew? It’s so well put together that I can see all of the different elements working together making the same narrative point (everything from movement, performance, lighting, design, atmosphere, sound etc). Therefore I know there was no confusion about what the point of each scene was and how it fit into the larger context of your story. I’m just curious to know if you found it challenging communicating these points?

The script was originally much denser as it can be seen in the end result. In the final cut about a third of the dialogue and several beautiful takes were eliminated – it was hard for me to say goodbye to most of them. In the process of cutting one sometimes has the feeling as if one would be killing his own child. Suddenly, one has to get rid of situations and scenes which one likes just because they slow the development of the story or reveal too much. I talked to the actors (who were also working for free) about the story and my idea of it several times. And because hardly anyone had known me as a student, a good script was the only thing I could offer at that time.

The acting is incredible. I was never pulled out of the believability of your story for even a second. I was totally captivated the entire time. Can you tell us a little bit about your philosophy in regards to working with actors? What do you look for in a performance?

Eighty percent of a good acting performance is about the right casting. When you manage to suitably cast a character, which you have invented or copied from life, you have managed the hardest part. The rest is only about communication and the humanity of all the participants.

Thanks to TV series, which I do for a living, I know a lot of (not only) Slovak well-known and beginning actors. However, I like to work with those who put their hearts in their work. What I appreciate about people is when their job is their hobby. I am motivated by the idea that I rehearse with an actor who gives me suggestions and thereby co-creates the character. Every director needs to co-create the character no matter how conceited he is and denies it. More than eighty percent of the communication in the life is nonverbal and this is also what acting is about. The film is able to reveal even the smallest emotional glimpse with a detailed take. This demands big emotional (and intellectual) self-control from the actor. This is why I do not like working with shallow people – if we are not able to connect on the emotional level, further cooperation is not possible.

We applied the same principle in the film Father. Together with the actors we talked abut the characters, who is who and why it is so. We talked about the fictive past of the characters, about the motivation which led them do what they did but also about feelings which the viewer should feel in the end. We soon find out, with the help of our instinct, whether the actor thinks about the character correctly and whether he acts naturally. There are no instructions. If you are not satisfied with the process of rehearsing, a cruel and merciless exchange is necessary, of course only if it is possible. There is much more than only one´s good reputation or a long-lasting friendship with the actor that is at risk.  Your film project, which you dedicate several years of your life, is at risk. A wrong cast or bad acting can spoil every even a genially constructed story. Neither can a good actor save a bad story. It is about the balance, which is necessary and there is nothing worse than a tormented actor or an unsatisfied director.

Do you give the actors room to improvise or are you pretty strict about sticking to the script?

I take the script only as a helping scheme. Nevertheless, I do not like schematism as such. I like freedom, which has to be based on the openness towards unexpected events. In the case of a low-budget production you have to improvise partially, otherwise you will not be satisfied. And this is what I do not like. The script is only one step of the film development and what is the most important fact, it is not the last step. The final version of the film will always be the last step. It is not important whether you stick to the script exactly. I perceive it only as a useful guide how to proceed in the development of the story. However, there are certain rules which should not be changed for the sake of dramaturgical logics. It is the same when working with actors. If an actor shows me with his improvisation something better than I wanted, I would be insane not to accept it. Rehearsal before shooting has its advantages – work is then more comfortable and time and energy is saved. This is also about repressing one’s own personality, which always thinks that nobody else is better. But reality is different. In real life, one has to step back only for the sake of the thing.

Your choreography of movement matched the energy of your scenes perfectly. Everything integrates really well together. I can tell you had a sense of how you wanted to edit this together before you even started editing. For instance, 16:56 to 17:08 – The movement is in this scene is subtle, slow and follows the energy of the story. Or for example your water shot at 18:01 that merges into the fish tank scene at 18:10 which then transforms into a restaurant scene at 18:19. This is a really smooth transition into two totally different environments. In fact the editing of the entire film is incredibly well done. Do you consider yourself a good choreographer of energy?

One of the best aspects of the film is its atmosphere. From this point of view I perceive the film as a musical symphony which has been formed rationally, but has a clearly emotional experience. When I needed to reach a certain emotional state of a particular scene when writing the director script, I was listening to music with a similar atmosphere during the writing. Music is a proof of the existence of a higher reality, its vibrations can get a person into various emotional states. When connected with picture and symbolic speech, the film creates a specific atmosphere – for me, a film is dead and not interesting if it does not have this atmosphere. The viewer has to be absorbed by the fictive reality of the film during the first 10 minutes. When this happens, the story which is revealed on the screen becomes his only reality. Then it is possible to talk about a good atmosphere. It can be reached by various means; each one is based on the sense of aesthetics of that particular director and the director of photography. My aesthetic taste was inspired by filmmakers such as Terrence Malick or Andrej Tarkovsky. I like when the camera is in motion and reveals the story to the audience gradually and without unnecessary dialogue with the help of symbols and situations which the viewer can read subconsciously until the last catharsis.

Film, in the first place, has to show a believable life also with its archetypal essence – so that everyone who watches the film could find a piece of himself in it. Besides, nowadays we will not invent better stories than people did in the past. The Bible, Greek, Egyptian and Indian myths have told everything about the humans. There is nothing better. Human deeds and sins repeat constantly. Is there any more “serious” murder than the murder committed by Cain? In the end it is about one´s vision of the world which is unique in its subjectivity – and that is what one can offer to the others. Who is not able to accept it, is not able to give it to others and that is all.

Looking back, if you could do anything differently what would it be? What is the single most important lesson you learnt while you shot this film that you’ll carry forward to your next project?

One of the most important things I have learned when filming Father is that one has to be patient. It is not possible to accelerate the natural pace of things, not even when you want it too much – that is when you cause distress and you are unhappy. One has to be patient and determined. Besides, film production is a collective work – one has to work and get along with a big number of different (and also problematic) people. That is why it is important to learn to listen to people and try to get into and understand their inner personality. This applies not only to film production.

What project are you working on next?

My next film is the film called Piargy: Antichrist Reborn. It is a poetical story from the beginning of the 20^th century with a mysterious, even a frightening atmosphere and it is something between a drama, romance and horror film. Due to its outer plot line it resembles faith or a metaphorical picture of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah about the destruction of sinners by a natural catastrophe. Instead of a huge stone city there is a small out-of-the-way mountain settlement. Instead of sulphur and fire, a destructive avalanche comes. Collective guilt and the following punishment express the idea of a total disruption of the society. The story is a reflexion about human suffering and its meaning. It is trying to answer three basic questions about life: What is suffering? Why is it in the world? And what attitude should one have towards it? The most important mission of the film is to emphasize the fact that the meaning of human life is not material happiness and welfare but the growth of soul and unselfish love. The project is in the phase of development and financing – its premiere should take place at the end of 2014. I am also preparing a short unnamed low-budget project from the surrounding of the Chinese community in Slovakia to fill the years of waiting and I would like to distribute this project through the internet.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas with the Lights Film School blog readers. We all truly appreciate your insight. Best of luck!

The two-minute elevator pitch is an integral part of Hollywood folklore, and it goes like this: when you have a movie you need to get made, you must have a two minute pitch ready and you must be prepared to deliver it at the drop of a hat. Because, living in Hollywood, one day you might just find yourself in an elevator with an executive or a studio head who – because he’s in an elevator with you and can’t get out until it reaches his floor – is essentially trapped with you. Trapped in the elevator with you, the studio head will have no choice but to hear your pitch, love it, shake your hand, and make you the next big Hollywood filmmaker before you’ve even reached your intended floor.

As we are all storytellers, we can plainly see – this is a fable of sorts. Surely it happened to someone at some point in some iteration, but frankly, elevator rides do not take a full two minutes and even if they did, this scenario is far-fetched. However, the core of what’s being expressed within this elevator fable is very true and it’s essential for every writer and director to understand and put into practice.

When you are working on a project that you want to get made, you must be willing and able to talk about it in a way that is brief, interesting, and compelling. Two minutes may not be a time constraint placed upon you by the world’s slowest elevator, but it sure is existent in people’s attention spans!

Whether you are seeking independent financiers to come up with your budget, pitching at studios to get a big Hollywood budget, or pitching to professors to get approval to begin your thesis film, you must have a compelling pitch prepared.

A pitch is like an appetizer and is meant to create an appetite for your film within those you’ve pitched to. You want to spark interest and you want them to want more – enough so that they’ll help you make the film. Don’t go into every little detail.

A good portion of what makes a pitch compelling is the ease and enthusiasm of the person pitching. Excitement is contagious. If you feel good about what you’re saying, people’s attention will be sparked. Remember, you only have two minutes, so use it to really paint an emotional and visual picture of the palette of your film. Describe the world; create a character people can automatically care about. Talk about the film like you’re describing someone or somewhere you know well.

In formulating a pitch, you might consider the following outline:

- Introduce the time and place of the film. “Hollywood – 1950’s”. Describe the place a little, paint a real picture – what does it feel like, what does it smell like, what’s going on there?
- Introduce a character. Give us something really human about him or her – really make him or her feel real.
- Describe the character’s plight. What is he or she up against? What is his or her journey going to be in this film?
- Describe what your film is about. Remember, what your film is about is not necessarily an outline of what happens in your film. It’s a description of the themes and goals of your film – what you’ll teach or communicate to your audience.
- Close with a hook – something to keep your audience wondering what might happen and wishing for more. A pitch that ends on intrigue is a perfect pitch.

Be prepared to talk about your script or project with pride and enthusiasm to anyone who will listen. You never know where opportunities lie!

By Lauren S. McGrail