All right, now that I've got my hands on a proper computer, with a proper keyboard (instead of my stupid phone), I can type a full response. I'm not quite sure that you're soliciting advice in this thread, but I take great interest in what you're doing, so I can't help it.
Wow, that was much more intimidating than I though it was going to be... People actually EXPECTED me to have ideas and opinions. Thank goodness they came with their own! I was overloaded in technical details to be very helpful in specifics...
Wait, what are you talking about, the actors and their performances? If so, it is the actor's job to bring the performance. They should have the character fully fleshed out, based on what's in the script. The director shouldn't have to spell out every minute detail. Yeah, the director should be opinionated, and have a clear vision, but the collaborative process is vital.
Anyway, mainly, I wanted to point out one thing. You say that you were too overloaded in technical details to be very helpful. You remember how you used to joke that I'm anti-lighting, or anti-cinematography? Of course I'm neither, but perhaps you now have an idea as to how I came to the decision to pretty much forego any real cinematography in my latest project. It's not that I don't want it. It's that I've done enough of these ultra-low-budget shorts to come to the realization that I can't do it all. If I focus my energy on directing the action, I don't have time for cinematography. If I focus my energy on cinematography, I don't have time to properly direct the action. If I try to do both, I will fail at both. Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think I can successfully be director and director of photography at the same time. I can do one, but not both. In my opinion, it sounds like you chose to be director of photography on this shoot, and perhaps the actors basically directed themselves.
I don't say this as a criticism. I intend this more of a Welcome to My World. Anyway, there's a point to this. I think it'd be good to make a clear choice as to which side you are personally interested in working on (director, or DoP) and focus your energy on that, and perhaps find a partner who can take the reigns on the other end.
As I mentioned, on my latest project, I basically decided to shoot it without a DoP. Techicnally, I was the DoP, but I gave that job very little of my attention. If I could've hired a proper DoP, I definitely would have. Of all my prior shorts, the most successful one I produced was a collaborative partnership. It was for a 48HFP. A friend of a friend took directorial duties, and I took DoP duties, except I actually did a lot of stuff that a director would normally control. The director had full control over what happened. I had full control over how to shoot it. Of course, we exchanged ideas, but ultimately, we trusted each other to make the right decisions on each others' end.
Setting up a shot takes time. Working with actors takes time. You can't do both, simultaneously. I wonder, is there anyone you can put trust in to take co-directorial duties, to work with the actors, while you focus on the technical stuff?
[*]Giving helpful acting advice is a must.
I have NO IDEA how to talk about this effectively with actors..
Buying myself acting classes for Christmas!
Hmm, I'm not sure that I completely agree with this. I don't think a director should have to be an acting coach. To be honest, I think this is more a reflection of who you're working with. A director needs to be able to clearly communicate what they want, but it's the actor's job to make this a reality.
When I was working with all-volunteers, my casts were always friends, mostly non-actors. I found myself feeding them lines -- telling them exactly how to say it. That's bad. After finally being able to work with a cast that knows their craft, I find that I really only have to communicate emotions. One specific example I can think of, off the top of my head -- on one occasion, I wasn't really liking what one of my actors was giving me, so I told him that I thought his character might be humbled and apologetic, but not so pathetic. He got it, and nailed it. I didn't need to use any fancy acting terminology -- just basic emotions.
I actually do think it's a great idea to take an acting class, and in fact, I've been meaning to do this, myself. Specifically, I want to take an acting for directors class.
Regardless, I think your experiences, in this respect, will improve greatly, as you start to work with a more seasoned cast. I know a lot of people on this forum recommend working with an older cast. I gotta say, though, that I've had wonderful experiences working with college theater students and graduates. It's one thing to work with someone who is taking an acting class. But imagine working with people who have dedicated four years of their lives to learning this craft. Plus, generally speaking, they have fun doing what they do.
[*]Breath, and use check lists!
I did good on my shot checklist, this kept me on track and got all the shots I wanted, done early!
I did NOT run my own Camera Operator checklist and forgot some VITAL steps that resulted in degrading my images.
Yep, I've done that before (made bone-headed mistakes by just forgetting to do something). I've contemplated having a checklist, but I think that might be overkill. Perhaps you just create a routine to go through before each shot. You know, like it's typical to say "Quiet on the set. Roll Camera. Action." Maybe you have lines that you speak aloud, to yourself, first. "Focus, check. White-balance, check. Shutter-speed, check. ISO, check. Frame-rate, check. Whatever-you-think-should-be-routine, check." If you say the same thing enough times, that would function as a checklist, and you wouldn't need an actual physical checklist on paper.
[*]Tracking where "we" are in the script\story is vital:
It surprised me how many time I did NOT know what the next line was or where we were in the script. I knew EXACTLY where we were in shooting, but it was way out of temporal order and even though I SWORE I had the entire script memorized, it fled from before my mind on the day.
Huh. Interesting. I've never had that problem. Yeah, it's pretty much necessary to always have a script on hand. And many directors prefer to use a shooting script as a modified shot-list. However, to be honest, I think the main problem is perhaps not enough time was spent in pre-production and/or screenwriting. By the time I get on set, I've gone over the script so many times that it'd be impossible for me to not know it like the back of my hand.
[*]Separate Sound and Video systems ROCK! I'm never going back to running mics into the camera!
I'm with you all the way. I shot for years with a mic plugged into my camera. It's liberating to be able to move the camera wherever I want, without a pesky cable tie-ing it down. Won't have it any other way.
[*]Even inexperience crew are incredibly helpful. I pressed into service someone who was just riding along with a fried, she ran slate for me and saved the shot multiple occasions.
Ain't that the truth. Even a total noob can occasionally serve as an accidental script-supervisor, in addition to just completing random helpful tasks.
[*]I'm a pretty funny guy (yeah, but looks don't count), had em laughing on several occasions, mostly at my own expense.
Sweet. I don't know how other directors feel about this, but for me, it's of the utmost importance that we all have fun on set. Otherwise, why the heck are we doing it? A sense of humor goes a long way, and I'm not surprised that you created a fun environment.
Keep up the good work, man!
Sometimes it's not even necessary to have the correct answer just so long as there's a sense that you've got the vision in your head and can help "direct" the cast/crew toward that vision.
