watch Director Demo Reel

[HMSanchez87]

I just want to see what people think of my Demo Reel. I created it a few months back but never got a really good critique. I’ve gotten 2 directing gigs (a Short and a Feature) because of it, but I still want to here from the community.

Director Demo Reel: https://vimeo.com/38614957

 

[Cracker Funk]

The footage looks nice. I'll be honest, though -- I've never been able to figure out what's up with director demo reels. Mind you, my comments are coming from a place of inexperience with professional filmmaking. Anyway, is this a thing that people do? Do directors get jobs with their reels?

These are sincere questions I'm asking, cuz it honestly doesn't make sense to me. In my mind, the only way to get a feel for a directors' work is to watch an entire piece (or at least a big chunk of it). I feel the same about an editors' work. Not sure how a demo reel can tell you much about either job.

 

[HMSanchez87]

The footage looks nice. I'll be honest, though -- I've never been able to figure out what's up with director demo reels. Mind you, my comments are coming from a place of inexperience with professional filmmaking. Anyway, is this a thing that people do? Do directors get jobs with their reels?

These are sincere questions I'm asking, cuz it honestly doesn't make sense to me. In my mind, the only way to get a feel for a directors' work is to watch an entire piece (or at least a big chunk of it). I feel the same about an editors' work. Not sure how a demo reel can tell you much about either job.

It’s good for independent directors, that don’t have a great amount of street credit. It more like a resume for a director, it wont get you a job but it may get you a meeting/ interview with someone who saw the demo reel and liked what they saw. Then in my opinion, you have to sell yourself and your vision to actually get the job.

I do agree you should watch a director entire piece if possible, which always wont be the case. So a demo reel allows a director to show the viewer 20 seconds or more of scene that shows his skills on how to compose a shot, direct the situation, and give the emotional response that he was aiming for. It’s all about the feel from the clips you choose to put in your demo reel.

And on the editors Demo Reel, it’s become common to show your skills in graphics and visual effects. I find it weird since a editors job is to tell a story by putting it all together but employers like to see your skills behind after effects more then they do with telling a story with L cuts and transitions. But an editors demo reel may get you a job. I have a friend that become a editor for “Project Run Way’ right out of college because of how good his reel looked.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Ok, that sounds perfectly reasonable. If you'd like, I can take a closer look, and give a more detailed critique than "looks nice".

 

[HMSanchez87]

Ok, that sounds perfectly reasonable. If you'd like, I can take a closer look, and give a more detailed critique than "looks nice".

yeah, I would really appreciate it. Thanks

 

[Bernadett-B]

Personally I think it's a great demo reel. But I agree with Crackerfunk that it's quite hard to evaluate a director's work based on a reel. It's easier with actors, cinematographers and editors. But it shows what kind of works you have done up until now and it can make people be interested in your directing skills.

 

[HMSanchez87]

Personally I think it's a great demo reel. But I agree with Crackerfunk that it's quite hard to evaluate a director's work based on a reel. It's easier with actors, cinematographers and editors. But it shows what kind of works you have done up until now and it can make people be interested in your directing skills.

Thanks for checking out the Demo. And yeah the whole point is to show what kinda of work you have done and get people interested in it.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Okay, as promised, here's the more detailed critique. First -- a couple disclaimers.

Everything I say is going to be negative. But please keep in mind that I'm only pointing out a small handful of shots that I think you should consider taking out -- and that means that all of the other shots (and there are many more of them) I think are awesome. Overall, I think this is a very nice reel, and for the record, a lot of what your doing is better quality than what I'm doing, so absolutely none of my critiques are intended as put-downs, and are of course only intended to help.

First, I think it's too long, and could be edited at a much more brisk pace. For the record, I say that about almost everything. But I think you gotta keep in mind the fact that we are the MTV generation. Your audience is accustomed to digesting video at a breakneck pace.

Some specific shots that I think are off:

At 0:11, the shot of the two dudes facing each other at a table -- I like the composition, but it's too dark for us to read their faces or anything. Now, in the context of the film, that might make sense and might have been exactly what you wanted. But taken out of context, and it kinda just looks poorly-lit.

The cut at 0:22 is awkward, cuz his actions don't match. If it were me, I would just take out the first shot and go straight to the MW shot of him hands-tied on the bed.

The audio isn't so great, on the line, "you did this to yourself", so I think I would just leave that one out.

I count at least three shots that we see twice. I understand that the first time we see them is in the introductory montage, and the second time we see them is within the context of a snippet of the short film. Nevertheless, the inherent repetitiveness doesn't work well for me.

There's a shot of a dude tied-up, and the bad-guy is about to torture he and his cohort. To be frank, the acting didn't feel all that convincing to me.

Generally speaking, I like the variation that you show in your footage. The only thing I kept finding myself thinking was that I wanted to see some wide and extra wide shots, in big open spaces. Virtually everything is in the range of medium to extra close. And then you threw in that shot on the beach, with the 2nd world in the sky. Beautiful shot! Do you have more stuff like that?

Again, it's overall very good. I'm just nitpicking because I assume that's the kind of honest critique you're looking for. I hope this video gets you some interviews!

 

[HMSanchez87]

Thanks for the critique and I didn't take anything to offense. This is what I wanted and somewhat expected. I agree entirely that it’s to long. I will most likely cut it down by 30 seconds. I also agree about your MTV reference but to a degree. Demo reels aren’t honestly aimed at that demographic in the first place, unless you're a music video director in my opinion.

I also agree about the torture shot. It’s a film called “Scarred” and I find it funny that you bring it up, because as I waited for your reply, I decided to watch it. It was never finished because of time and budget reasons. Anyway, I watched it and I thought to myself, damn this is horrible. So I’m going to replace that clip. I’m going to use a small scene from a film I did recently called “Lock-Down” that is amazing in comparison and I was lucky enough to work with a SAG actors.

My style is very medium close ups, I’m not a fan of wide shots unless it’s an action sequence or grand scale shot like the “Two Worlds”. It’s a style that I have developed over time and is almost like second nature to me.

I agree with some stuff you mentioned and some I don’t, but your critique will defiantly bring improvements over the next version of the reel.

Thanks

 

[ussinners]

If you were a cinematographer I'd say this was fantastic. All the shots were excellent. The problem I had with it is the acting in just about everything (even in the silent shots) is not very good. You can tell they're acting instead of living and doing. But, that comes with experience.

Beautiful reel.

 

[HMSanchez87]

If you were a cinematographer I'd say this was fantastic. All the shots were excellent. The problem I had with it is the acting in just about everything (even in the silent shots) is not very good. You can tell they're acting instead of living and doing. But, that comes with experience.

Beautiful reel.

First complete negative response, which is fine. Can't make everyone happy but I know my Director Of Photography will appreciate your complement lol.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Sanchez, I'm glad my comments could help, and of course I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with every aspect of every critique. It's just a fresh perspective, of course. And I see what you mean about not needing more rapidly-paced editing.

Also, though I'm sure you could investigate this on your own, I can't help but note that some people around here tend to post negative reviews, without really having the experience to back up their opinions. Not talking about anyone in particular.

 

[HMSanchez87]

If anyone is interested, I've only directed short films. And most of my work has either been seen in festivals or online afterwards. But if you would like, after you've seen my Demo Reel, check out the shorts I have released.

On-Star Commercial: https://vimeo.com/36928278

Shadows Of The Mind: https://vimeo.com/35076203
This was selected at the Orlando Film Slam Festival. It has gotten some great reactions but if you like comment on it.

Written Dreams: https://vimeo.com/41180365
This was honestly a experimental film, I wanted to do something interesting. And I decided on a mans journey through his subconscious. Very artsy film.

"A Real Hero" I'm sending out to festivals to be screened and I'm heavy at work on my biggest short film "Lock-Down". So when you check out the demo, you can at least see some of my work in full. There features or long, but short films that rang from 3mins to eventually 15mins when Lock-Down comes out. They may be small but think they have some punch to them.

 

[ussinners]

It's not completely negative. The DP work is great. If you helped set up the shots then you did part of the good work. The overall look is great. But, the acting is bad. If you can't see it, then learn to. It's what makes a director. Every inch of an actor has to portray reality. It's the difference between good and bad. That's a huge part of being a director.

As far as having experience Cracker I have over ten years in live theatre. Since I was a kid, I can spot bad acting from a mile away, and I get the best performances from any lousy actor. I can tell from the trailer of your movie just how bad the acting was. But, then I read the script, so I knew just how bad that was, as I told you when you sent it to me. But, then I think you responded along the lines, it's what I'm going to shoot.

 

[HMSanchez87]

It's not completely negative. The DP work is great. If you helped set up the shots then you did part of the good work. The overall look is great. But, the acting is bad. If you can't see it, then learn to. It's what makes a director. Every inch of an actor has to portray reality. It's the difference between good and bad. That's a huge part of being a director.

As far as having experience Cracker I have over ten years in live theatre. Since I was a kid, I can spot bad acting from a mile away, and I get the best performances from any lousy actor. I can tell from the trailer of your movie just how bad the acting was. But, then I read the script, so I knew just how bad that was, as I told you when you sent it to me. But, then I think you responded along the lines, it's what I'm going to shoot.

I don't want this to turn into some big debate or argument between you 2 but I also like to state some things on the topic and on what you said. When it matters to directing actors on how you want them to portray that character or just perform in general is very subjective, reality is extremely subjective. Now there can be very bad, trust me I’ve seen terrible acting but when it matters to performances in my short films, I think they did fine and many people agree. They weren’t amazing but decent.

Another thing is, while acting is important for a director, it is not a huge part of being one. Directors choose what the tone of the film will be and what the audience should gain from the experience. We are responsible for deciding camera angles, lens effects and lighting and that's something I think everyone who should learn, in my opinion. All those things become a whole and that's what really makes a director.

The last thing is, I feel your statement towards me was a little arrogant. You said, “But, the acting is bad”, which I felt you where trying to state it as a fact. It’s your opinion and nothing more, some may agree with you but many also won’t. I also don’t think you have the right to tell someone they should learn something because you’re very new to the film world, as are most people on this site, even with your theater background and your feature. Sure your background will help you, but you still have a lot to learn like many of us, myself included.

I hope I don’t offend you and I still appreciate your first post and thank you for at lease taking the time to watch the reel.

 

[FernandoAndre]

If people criticize, it is because they liked. Regardless of who is criticizing, learn from it. I posted my reel and did not get even a "wtf is this?" haha.

I like your demo. Congratulations.

 

[HMSanchez87]

If people criticize, it is because they liked. Regardless of who is criticizing, learn from it. I posted my reel and did not get even a "wtf is this?" haha.

I like your demo. Congratulations.

Thanks for the post, I appreciate it. If you don't mind, since its become a somewhat sub topic. What do you think of some of the performances that you see in my reel. Are they good, average, or bad? And if you want, post your Demo Reel here, I wouldn't mind checking it out.

 

[ussinners]

When it matters to directing actors on how you want them to portray that character or just perform in general is very subjective, reality is extremely subjective.

Another thing is, while acting is important for a director, it is not a huge part of being one. Directors choose what the tone of the film will be and what the audience should gain from the experience.

I can't disagree more with your statement of "It not being a huge part". It's one of the most important parts of being a director. The reason so many (90% +) of no/micro/lo budget movies go nowhere is because the acting is sub par.

You took such lengths to get the actual shot gorgeous, beautiful and wonderful, and then put bad acting in it. A director takes the time to make sure it's 100%. You did 75%. Because in the long run, an audience will appreciate a movie that might not look great, that has good acting in it (my movie), as opposed to one where the performances have them looking at their watches. Or worse turning it off because the acting is bad.

Don't think that the look is more important than the substance. The substance is story and acting. It's on these two levels that most fail.

The last thing is, I feel your statement towards me was a little arrogant. You said, “But, the acting is bad”, which I felt you where trying to state it as a fact. It’s your opinion and nothing more, some may agree with you but many also won’t. I also don’t think you have the right to tell someone they should learn something because you’re very new to the film world, as are most people on this site, even with your theater background and your feature. Sure your background will help you, but you still have a lot to learn like many of us, myself included.

I hope I don’t offend you and I still appreciate your first post and thank you for at lease taking the time to watch the reel.

I'm very matter of fact. But, while many will say I'm arrogant, I'm not. I don't try to be, and if we were talking face to face, you wouldn't even think that. But, if I offended you, I apologize. As I've written on numerous occasions, with the movie I was just working on, I was second guessed and questioned about everything. An arrogant person would just put them in their place, tell them to shut up and do as their told. I never did that. I should have. But, I didn't.

It is only my opinion. But, I will say this about my opinion on acting (and only acting) I know what I'm talking about. I don't give advice on most anything else , except the basics of screenwriting. I know acting. I knew it before I worked in theatre and long after. I'm also really good at picking out upcoming bands. That's not something I learned, it's something I know.

As far as what you should learn. You should learn to tell a good take from a bad one. You should learn "How to direct actors to get the best possible performance". This is your job as director. You can disagree. But, you'd be wrong. While I might not be phrasing it correctly. I might be coming off nasty, arrogant, or rude. I'm not trying to be at all. What I put in bold I not only strongly feel to be relevant to be a good director, I believe it to be essential. It will separate you from everyone else. Because if you could do that, you have everything else visually down pat.

As far as what I need to learn. I need to learn everything. But, the two things I do know, and it can only help everyone to start with these, a well-written screenplay (it can suck, but it needs to be well-written), and good acting. Most everything else an audience will forgive on a no/micro/lo budget level.

 

[HMSanchez87]

I can't disagree more with your statement of "It not being a huge part". It's one of the most important parts of being a director. The reason so many (90% +) of no/micro/lo budget movies go nowhere is because the acting is sub par.

You took such lengths to get the actual shot gorgeous, beautiful and wonderful, and then put bad acting in it. A director takes the time to make sure it's 100%. You did 75%. Because in the long run, an audience will appreciate a movie that might not look great, that has good acting in it (my movie), as opposed to one where the performances have them looking at their watches. Or worse turning it off because the acting is bad.

Don't think that the look is more important than the substance. The substance is story and acting. It's on these two levels that most fail.



I'm very matter of fact. But, while many will say I'm arrogant, I'm not. I don't try to be, and if we were talking face to face, you wouldn't even think that. But, if I offended you, I apologize. As I've written on numerous occasions, with the movie I was just working on, I was second guessed and questioned about everything. An arrogant person would just put them in their place, tell them to shut up and do as their told. I never did that. I should have. But, I didn't.

It is only my opinion. But, I will say this about my opinion on acting (and only acting) I know what I'm talking about. I don't give advice on most anything else , except the basics of screenwriting. I know acting. I knew it before I worked in theatre and long after. I'm also really good at picking out upcoming bands. That's not something I learned, it's something I know.

As far as what you should learn. You should learn to tell a good take from a bad one. You should learn "How to direct actors to get the best possible performance". This is your job as director. You can disagree. But, you'd be wrong. While I might not be phrasing it correctly. I might be coming off nasty, arrogant, or rude. I'm not trying to be at all. What I put in bold I not only strongly feel to be relevant to be a good director, I believe it to be essential. It will separate you from everyone else. Because if you could do that, you have everything else visually down pat.

As far as what I need to learn. I need to learn everything. But, the two things I do know, and it can only help everyone to start with these, a well-written screenplay (it can suck, but it needs to be well-written), and good acting. Most everything else an audience will forgive on a no/micro/lo budget level.

I don't agree with anything you’ve said and I still believe your arrogant and honestly meeting you wouldn't change that. I was hoping your next response would be you agreeing to disagree on each other’s opinions, but that wasn't the case. A director’s job is many critical things but to put one above all, I will never agree with, and it doesn't make me wrong. Directing is subjective and you can’t debate it. To tell someone there wrong in his or her belief system on a topic (Directing) is arrogance in itself.

I believe you’ve gained some form of ego and superiority over people that don't agree with you just because you have some theater background and you made one film. A film that hasn’t made any impact, in any form or way, and while you have decent reviews, none of them are from creditable critics. I’m not trying to bash your film, I honestly can’t judge it for myself, I’ve never seen it, but I would think you would be more humble seeing that it is your first film.

As for myself, I directed to the best of my abilities at the time of each film as I grew as a filmmaker. I gave even attention to all the aspects that are important, including performance, cinematography, production value, lighting, and most of all, a positive atmosphere for my crew on set. You don’t like my movies, fine. You are one person that I didn't entertain and I’m sure you are not the only one but there are dozens that I have entertained and that's fine by me.

Now when you reply, and I know you will, I hope you say, I respectfully disagree but good luck on your future. I’m hoping to go back to the original topic of this thread. If you don't and you continue this debate, I won’t bother replying. I will either try to delete this thread or let it die out and disappear.

And to end this on a good note, Mr. George Snow, I wish you the best of luck on your next film.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I can't disagree more with your statement of "It not being a huge part". It's one of the most important parts of being a director. The reason so many (90% +) of no/micro/lo budget movies go nowhere is because the acting is sub par.

Don't think that the look is more important than the substance. The substance is story and acting. It's on these two levels that most fail.

As for myself, I directed to the best of my abilities at the time of each film as I grew as a filmmaker. I gave even attention to all the aspects that are important, including performance, cinematography, production value, lighting, and most of all, a positive atmosphere for my crew on set.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'm going to disagree with both of you!

Ussinners: There isn't a most important part as a director, they are all important. Getting a great acting performance is completely worthless without equal attention to detail in other areas of filmmaking. For example, spending your time getting a good or great performance from the actors is pointless if the performance is later destroyed by ADR or by poor picture editing. A decent performance with good production sound is virtually always going to be preferable to a great performance with ADR.

Sanchez: You've listed all the aspect which are important to you but not all the aspects which are important to be a good director. Pre-production and Production exist solely to provide the raw materials for Post-production, yet in all your "aspects which are important" you haven't mentioned even a single post-production craft!?

The reason most no/micro/lo budget movies go nowhere is not because the acting is sub par or because the atmosphere on set is not positive. The reason generally is that filmmakers concentrate their efforts too much in the areas of filmmaking which they enjoy the most, at the expense of other important areas and thereby end up with weak story telling. The telling of the story is the whole point of the film medium, the story itself, the acting and everything else is subservient to this.

G