Yes, it’s a cliche, but it’s also true.

Producer Gareth More and I have just had a pretty big setback.  A few of the actors we were courting have all given us a definitive no, so we’re going back to the drawing board.

Are we upset? No. But it does worry us, as the whole process seems to be taking forever, and we’re hoping to shoot before the olympics.

On this film, it’s extremely important that we have not only a set of excellent actors, but someone who is recognisable.  So, on we go!

The music video shoot I worked on this weekend. Some SciFi shit going on here!

Having just spent my entire weekend working on various shoots, I’ve had a few thoughts that occur to me.  Filmmakers often make very fundamental mistakes that can result in unpleasant or surprising results when it comes to the edit.  If you want to avoid them, here’s a few tips:

• DO get various options for shots. If you’re laying track and dolly, then get your shots at various speeds. If you’re looking to get creative in the edit, get lots of closeups. Leave yourself options, to maximise your creative palette.
• DON’T insist on having it look exactly the way it does ‘in your head.’ Light and shoot the scene with the tools you have, not the ones you wish you did.
• DO work quickly. The more coverage the better (as long as you vary the types of shots you’re using).
• DON’T ignore your performers. They’ll give you a weak showing and sink your whole project.
• DO have fun. If you’re having fun, so is your crew. Pretend if you have to.

Go any more tips? We’ve all worked on horrible shoots – which are bad at the time, but are also great learning experiences.  Do share if you’ve got some ideas!

Final Cut Pro X: Much maligned, little understood.

A lot of people have been hating on Final Cut Pro X, calling it ‘iMovie Pro’ and abandoning it for alternative platforms, or flat out refusing to upgrade from Final Cut Pro 7.

Personally, I’ve seen little reason to upgrade from FCP7 so far, as it’s still working quite nicely for me.  I’ve been thinking that I would make a permanent move to Adobe Premiere, as it’s pretty much identical to the old Final Cut Pro, but I have been holding off until CS6 launches.

That said, I’ve recently worked on some projects using Final Cut Pro X, and have been pleasantly surprised by the results.  A few bullet points, and then my in-depth thoughts follow:

• This is NOT iMovie Pro.  It’s as fully featured as FCP7, though some of those features are now in a different place.
• Background render is cool, but not REALLY background, as it only happens when you aren’t doing anything – which sort of defeats the purpose.
• Being able to put any clip format in the timeline (ah, sorry, storyline) is awesome.
• Compound clips (sort of like nested sequences) are really, really cool.
• The storyline is different, but once you get used to it quite cool, and just as fully featured as other non-linear editors.
• Built in audio tools are awesome, allowing true subframe audio editing.
• Built in colour grading tools are also cool, and blow the three-way colour corrector out of the water.  But they are no match for the Color app.
• I have yet to figure out an easy way to tell the duration of a clip in your timeline. There must be a way?
• FCP-X is too slow.  The user interface features lots of slick-looking animations that, personally, I would rather do without in return for faster response time.  This, to my mind, is the single biggest thing holding this non-linear editor back, and the one thing that prevents me from using it more.  FCP7, despite being outdated software, is quick as lightning, and edits can be changed in seconds.  Not so in FCP-X, which hangs even on my Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM.

All that in mind, here’s my personal experience of using it:

Working in the timeline. Great in principle, but not responsive enough!

The Story so Far…

I edit and grade for work.  My particular expertise lies with Final Cut Pro 7 and Apple Color, though I use AVID for work a lot, and have recently been making moves to Premiere, which is very similar to FCP7. (Or, what FCP8 would be).

Enter FCP X

I recently edited and graded a music video in Final Cut Studio using a tried and tested workflow doing picture edit in FCP7,  grading in Apple Color and then sending back to FCP7.  However, there were some issues with the footage, mainly rolling shutter artifacts.  (You can see the final video here).

So I decided to use FCP-X as an online editing tool, which was to be my first professional use of the software.  Using the 7-to-X app, I exported my FCP7 project to Final Cut Pro X.  So far so good, everything made the transition in one piece.

I sorted out the rolling shutter using the built in tools (VERY cool!).  However, I wanted to make the video a bit more interesting, so I downloaded a pack of light leaks, which I easily added to the project.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting.  Had I been doing this in Final Cut 7, I would have spent a lot of time staring at the render bar.  However, doing this in FCPX was a breeze, thanks to background render which allowed me to view the results of my messing about before having to render it.  Awesome.

This workflow wasn’t perfect though.  In an ideal world, I would have edited this project entirely in one NLE, sent it to be graded, and then returned to that same NLE for finishing the light leaks.  (This is now theoretically possible in FCP-X using DaVinci resolve. It’s can’t communicate with Apple Color, which is a shame).

So far so good.

Next up, I decided to try and challenge myself.  I happened to be working on a promo video for a catering company at the time, which looked to be just the ticket – a short and simple edit, but one that would need to be finished to a professional standard and delivered to a client.  The footage was shot on two cameras, an AF101 and a DSLR – two different codecs, which were both transcoded to ProRes 422.

Organising the footage felt awkward at first, but the more I used it the more I liked it.  Being able to create ‘subclips’ according to keywords is very cool.  Even though it was a 1 minute video, we had over 150 unique clips, many of which had several items that I wanted to pull out of them.  Instead of having to take copious notes, I simply selected the bit of clip I wanted and assigned it a keyword.  Very very cool.

Editing on the timeline felt weird at first, but the more I used it the more natural it felt.  It really isn’t THAT different from other NLEs, but there’s some neat features that make it easier and quicker to use.

In theory, at least.  Quite often, I found myself trying to pick up and move clips, only to have to wait while a ‘slick’ animation loaded up, showing me how cool it was to work with this new system.  If it actually worked quickly enough, I would probably find it cool.  But this was just irritating.

FCP-X has so many bells and whistles that it often slows right down, waiting for my computer to “think” about what it’s doing.  THIS should not be happening on my machine, considering that it’s a very powerful MacPro with good graphics processors.  This is my biggest complaint about the programme.

Organising clips in FCP-X. Different, but awesome.

Here’s Where it Gets Interesting!

That gripe aside, finishing on FCP-X was a dream.  Being able to edit the audio with the same powerful tools that Soundtrack Pro offers, while staying in the same timeline, was incredibly useful and cut down a significant chunk of time.

Same goes for colour grading.  Although the colour board is controversial (and, in my opinion, there should be an at least the option to have colour wheels), it’s useable and very powerful.  Even better, I was able to key out certain colours, apply image masks and various secondary grades, all within the same interface and without having to wait for it to render before playing back the results. Very very cool.

So what do I think?

I think Final Cut Pro X is great, for certain specific uses.

If you are in the business of producing short and snappy videos for digital consumption, then using it is a dream.  It can do everything you need it to, all in the same place. I will most definitely continue using it for the promos and music videos I produce.

If you’re looking at it from the point of view of a traditional post-house, then that’s another story altogether.  Your safest bet there is still working on AVID, which is what most of them do.  Which means that if you’re making a feature film, and possibly a short film, then you may want to steer clear.

At the end, it all comes down to planned delivery and understanding your workflow.

If you know your film will only stay on your machine for the duration of your edit, and you plan to deliver digitally, then FCP X is fantastic.

If you’re planning on grading in DaVinci resolve, sound post-producing in ProTools, and delivering to a digital format, then FCP-X is still a very viable option.

If, however, you plan on doing any work at all through a professional post-production facility, and work for broadcast, then my suggestion is to stick with AVID.

At the end, it comes down to what you need for the specific project you’re doing.  And although Final Cut Pro X is a very viable tool for your toolkit, it shouldn’t be the only one.

That said, at £200, there’s very little reason not to own it.  That’s really all there is to it.

Last week I finished up work on a music video that I directed, edited and colour graded for Turnpike Glow, a cool little rock band in London.

The budget of the video was about £450. But the actual cost was much higher.

What do I mean by that?  Well, our budget broke down roughly along these lines:

• Location: £100
• Cinematographer: £150
• Equipment: £150
• Food and Transport: £50

All that was a one-day shoot.  Sounds great, right?

Yes, BUT… had it not been for the generosity of people lending their support in-kind (doing it for free), this video would not have happened.

First off, the cinematographer we hired usually charges much, much more to do this kind of work, but he decided to be very nice to us.  And we got equally good deals on the location, and on equipment.

If we had been paying full rate, then location, equipment and cinematographer would have cost at least £1500 pounds right there.

Food and transport are fixed prices, not much you can do there.

The other big jobs were the director, editor and colourist.  In this case, I did all three of those jobs, because I happen to be quite good at them, and enjoy them all.  I spent one day directing, five days editing, and three days grading.

I edited and graded the video, using my production company’s own post-production facilities.  (Edited on Final Cut Pro, graded on Apple Color).

So in total, I worked on this video, full time, for 9 days, for free.

Had everyone on this video been paid at the full rate, the cost would have been much closer to £3000 pounds.

My point here isn’t to complain or gloat.  In my case, I’m happy to spend my time doing these things, because they benefit me in the long run, and I really love making films.  But, as a highly skilled individual, I also know what my time is worth.

It’s important to consider that, while digital technology HAS brought the costs of filmmaking down, the most expensive part of the process – the people – won’t ever go away.

My point is, yes you can create kick ass productions for little or no money… but that doesn’t mean they didn’t cost anything to produce!

(TL;DR: Be nice to your crew! They are giving you their time, for free!)

Last night, those words were rattling around my head.

I had gone to see a film called The Room, which was preceded by a Q&A / merchandise flogging session by the Director / Writer / Star of the film.

If you haven’t heard of this film before, please watch the trailer now.  Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Looks pretty awful, right?

The trailer doesn’t even show the half of it – it actually manages to make it look like there’s some sort of narrative drive. There isn’t.

This film is so awful, that it has been dubbed ‘the Citizen Kane of bad movies.’

So why would I bother going to a screening of such a bad film? And WHY would the director bother turning up to do a Q and A? Why is this film screening AT ALL? And in Central London, right on Leicester Square no less?

Turns out that this film is so absolutely god-awful, that it’s actually spawned a cult following – sort of along the lines of Rocky Horror Picture Show. Once a month, people turn out at The Prince Charles Cinema to watch this film, yell at the screen, throw plastic spoons, and generally have a riotous night. (Similar screenings happen in other parts of the world too).

And here’s the kicker: The Room has been released under director Tommy Wiseau’s own company. Which means that he takes a significant portion of the money made.  It may not be a lot, it’s definitely not block-buster levels, but it’s a consistent source of income.

On top of that, they sell DVDs, posters, and little plastic statues that yell taglines from the film when you press a button.  The fans lap it up.  Can you believe that?

I can.

Now, to be perfectly clear – Tommy Wiseau is not some kind of marketing genius.  The man is David Brent brought to life (or Michael Scott if you’re American).  Meeting him, you realize that he lives on another planet, and I’m 100% certain that he made this film thinking it would be good.

But somewhere inside that crazy head of his, he’s also realised that there’s an audience for his film, and he’s playing right to it.  Which brings me full circle to my point:

If you do something extreme, somebody will notice.  If you want to make a film, either make it extremely good, or extremely bad, and you’ll in all likelihood find an audience.

It’s mediocrity that’ll kill you.

Some stills from the rushes for our music video!

Yesterday was utter madness.

Indie band Turnpike Glow asked me and a colleague to make a music video for their new single ’1986′ (listen here), but having very limited resources meant we had to improvise a lot of what we were doing.

This morning, it’s got me thinking about some of the techniques we used for maintaining high production value on a tiny budget.  These are skewed towards music video, but can also be applied to any other form of filmmaking.  Here they are, in no particular order:

• A little bit of money goes a long way! Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can do it all for nothing!  On our shoot, we spent about £40 on food, £120 on lighting, £100 on location and £150 on hiring a professional cinematographer, willing to work at a reduced rate (Charley Meyer, a great guy!).  Most bands don’t realize how far you can stretch even that little bit of money – it makes a huge difference in the production value you can achieve.




• Find one fantastic location.  Finding a good location on a low budget is tricky. It should have very little natural light, interesting features, and cost little or nothing.  We lucked out in finding a theatre called The Yard, which has closed down for the season. They charged us a nominal fee to use the place.  Even better, it was located right next door to my office, which meant we had decent green room facilities (very important!).




• Maximise the use you get out of your location! The defining feature of the yard is the amphitheatre style seating.  But on the reverse angle is a white brick wall, which we also shot against.  This made it look like we had two locations, when we in fact had only one.




• Use all resources available to you! We happened to shoot on the only day of the year where we had significant snowfall in London. So, naturally, we put the band outside in the snow, and had them do a few takes of the song while we threw snowballs at them. Get creative, have fun!




• Shoot as few days as is humanly possible! A music video can be done in a day. A short film over a weekend.  A feature in two weeks.  Of course, all these factors depend on how complex they are.  BUT…




• Don’t go over schedule! This one is very important – people are being extremely nice to you in giving you their time for free. Don’t take advantage of that by making them work 12 hours.  Our shoot went from 10am to 7pm, including cleanup time. Those are decent hours, that everyone can be happy with.




• Work with your performers! Often overlooked, this one can kill your production.  With all the 9000 things going on in your head, it’s often easy to forget that the most important people on your set are the ones in front of the camera. DON’T forget this! Be nice to them, help them give their best, make them feel like everything is super relaxed, even when it isn’t.

Got any more tips you wanna add? Go for it!

The Turnpike Glow music video will be out in a week or so – now that’s a fast turnaround time!

We’re both extremely self-motivated and driven people, never happy to wait for success to fall into our laps – we chase in constantly.  However, I had been feeling somewhat despondent lately, as I just couldn’t see how making short films was worth it. They don’t make money, they don’t lead directly to features or commercials work – they’re really only good for practicing your craft.

Ari, on the other hand, was completely inspired by how self motivated and industrious a lot of people in the states appear to be.  With his influence, we came up with a cunning plan:

We’re going to convince an ad agency to give us a job making ads for them – by making a viral ad for ourselves.

Huh? How does that work?

Well, the thing is, the only way to get work, is to have done work.  People want to know you can deliver a product before they stump up the cash.

So we’ve decided to create a spec ad – a fake ad for a real product.  We plan on creating something so wild and over the top, yet also insanely clever and attention grabbing, that people won’t help but sit up and take notice.

A few requirements we’ve set for ourselves:

• It needs to look convincing – good enough to be a real ad. So it’s going to cost money.
• It needs to do well on the internet, generating thousands of views. So we’re targeting a younger audience.
• It needs to be shocking enough that said young people feel compelled to share it.

Our ultimate goal is for it to reach a critical mass and go viral – but even if it doesn’t, we’ll still shop it around in London, New York and Los Angeles, to see if we can’t score some work off the back of it.

I can’t talk about the contents of the ad yet, because we’re still too early in the process – but it’s truly inspired, to say the least.

Oh, and we’re working together with two production companies, Digital Snowball and 10 Thirty Entertainment, both of whom have pledged monetary and / or in kind support through equipment and facilities.

Plan on things happening quickly – it’s coming!

Me on a Normal Day

I haven’t been updating my blog a lot lately, which is a shame because I really enjoy writing it.

The reason for the lack of updates is simple- I haven’t had a lot to say lately.  The latter half of 2011 was largely about getting all my ducks in a row.  Being a filmmaker is all well and good, but making enough money to live can be tricky when you’re in such a competitive industry.

So I spent most of 2011 making contacts, applying for work, etc.  And I can now safely say, it has all worked out for the best.  The start of 2012 is looking very good, as I’m now getting in enough corporate promo and editing work to maintain myself while I develop my short film and feature film projects.

The crazy thing is, I still don’t know if I’m doing the right thing- but I think that’s what it’s like in this industry. You never know it’s working, until it’s actually working. So here’s hoping that I’ve gone down the right path- the alternative is far too depressing to even think about.

That said, this should hopefully mean that I get to stop worrying about earning enough money to survive, and start worrying about getting my film funded.  It’s all coming together, one step at a time.

I just have to keep reminding myself, it’s a marathon not a sprint.  Slow and steady wins the race.

In terms of exciting projects this year, I am writing and developing a feature film with a private company, directing two more episodes of the interactive series Timedancer, and I will be directing at least one new short film.

It’s going to be a busy year.

It’s no big secret that I’m currently working on a script for my first feature film.

Through discussions with Producer Gareth More, we are currently looking at going down the path of Horror / Thriller with this film.

But as we’re finding out, it’s a tricky line to walk. If you go straight up traditional horror, it gets boring quickly. But if you stray too far toward thriller, then pretty soon you’re looking at having to get big-name actors attached to help sell the film.  (One of the advantages of horror is that you can still sell it on concept alone).

So it’s a fine line we’re walking. One of the things we’re considering in writing this film is the difference between horror and terror.

Horror is something that comes from within – it should horrify you, and get under your skin.  It comes out of the moral decisions characters make, not from the situation they are in.

Terror, on the other hand, comes directly from the situation that a character finds themselves in.

Torcher movies like Hostel are pure terror, and very little horror.  The classic Dracula is the opposite, with very few moments of actual terror, but a lot of subversive and horrifying motives.

The best movies in the genre, in my opinion, manage to implement strong elements of both – on top of having excellent characters and plot.  Think Se7evn, or Silence of the Lambs.

So right now, this is the path we’re going down.  But as always, everything is subject to change.

By the way – if you haven’t watched the video yet, give it a glance now.  It’s the perfect example of the meaning of terror (and not horror).

Got any examples of horror you’d like to share?

I often talk about the importance of having a solid strategy to inform all the decisions you make when carrying out a project.

Last year I made a short film called Vincent : The story of a Time Traveler.  My goal in making it was simple: Create a film that is solid enough to make people look up and take notice of me as a filmmaker.

I decided to make a simple film – one main character, one main location – so that I could focus on the emotional core of the story.

The response to the film has been overwhelming, with literally hundreds of people writing me to tell me how much they loved it.

Better yet, the film got tons of invitations from festivals – that is, festival programmers who saw the film have actually written to me to ask me to enter the film in their festival.  This has earned it several Official Selections as well as two awards.  (Special Jury Prize at Huesca Film Festival, and Best Actor at the London Lift-Off Film Festival).

This film has been great to me – it let me travel to cool places like Dubai, Clermont Ferrand and St. John’s, Newfoundland – and I know I genuinely met people in all those places who I will continue to be friends with for years to come.

So now, at the end of its festival run, I have decided to make it available online, for free, for everyone to see.  Just visit the film’s website, www.vincentthemovie.com, to watch it!

Why am I doing this?  Because, as I said, I wanted a film that will put me out there, and get people to notice me.  The internet is, simply put, one of the most powerful tools I could possibly be using to do this.

Phase I of this film’s life was all about getting me to the festivals, to meet people and learn about how this industry works.  Mission accomplished.

Phase II is about opening it up to a wider audience, and just getting as many people to see it as possible – and, by extension, getting them to notice me.

One part of that strategy is to make the film available online for free.  But I have another, much more ambitious plan for it, that will ensure Vincent lives on for years to come, and gets me and my work noticed by as wide an audience as possible.

I don’t want to reveal too much about it right now, but believe me, you are going to love it!

So now that you’ve seen the film, what do you think about it?

EDIT: Here’s a link to the film on YouTube