Please Tear My Showreel Apart!

Location > Networking > Forum > Please Tear My Showreel Apart!

	Topic: Please Tear My Showreel Apart!
Posted : 27/01/10 / Views : 709 / Replies : 9 /
kirkmoore 80 posts last on: 13/01/12 send private reply	http://www.uk.castingcallpro.com/files.php?uid=84323&fuid=86063 Any and all comments about my rejiggered showreel would be welcome,thanks!

[add comments | all topics]

	Reply #1
Posted : 23/01/10
Lena.Andersson 60 posts last on: 04/01/12 send private reply	Hi Kirk I had someone in the buiness give me a critique on my show reel recently and I'm told to keep it like a trailer for a film. They watch 30 seconds of the reel (if you're lucky) and they want to see your best work. I would start with the motorbike scene and cut the scene's where there's a lot of screen time with other actors as it detracts from you. Cut it massively, it's too long and although your work is good, I got a bit bored watching it. There's a couple of scene's where the charaters are repeated. I don't think you need to do this, I would go for short and powerful. At least that is what I have decided to do with mine. I need to change a lot too. As they say, you never get a second chance to make a first impression and I think if you get it tighter then it will have more of an impact. Hope this helps, but I'm no expert, it's just my humble opinion. Lena :)

Reply #1

Posted : 23/01/10

Lena.Andersson
60 posts
last on: 04/01/12
send private reply

Hi Kirk

I had someone in the buiness give me a critique on my show reel recently and I'm told to keep it like a trailer for a film.
They watch 30 seconds of the reel (if you're lucky) and they want to see your best work.

I would start with the motorbike scene and cut the scene's where there's a lot of screen time with other actors as it detracts from you.

Cut it massively, it's too long and although your work is good, I got a bit bored watching it.
There's a couple of scene's where the charaters are repeated.
I don't think you need to do this, I would go for short and powerful.
At least that is what I have decided to do with mine. I need to change a lot too.

As they say, you never get a second chance to make a first impression and I think if you get it tighter then it will have more of an impact.

Hope this helps, but I'm no expert, it's just my humble opinion.

Lena :)

	Reply #2
Posted : 23/01/10
David.Laurence 198 posts last on: 32 min send private reply	Mm,where to start .It seems,but this is only my opinion,that everythings been slung in the pot and been givena really good mix. This gives it the feel of a youtube update by a guy who armed with a camera and just fancies a laugh,so has slapped a few random scenes on a DVD. You appear to have a quirky sense of humour,which comes across in the alleyman bit at the start.So youve established that in 5 seconds,then for some reason alleyman keeps appearing again and again. Try to define the characters and roles youd be put up for. Find contrasting pieces that show off your potential. At the moment Im afraid that with everything on the tape washing from one clip into another ,that a casting agent wont give this showreel anytime at all. I know its not roses,but you did ask for an opinion. Feel free to have a butchers at my showreel. Its not perfect,but Ive tried to define three characters I might cast for,by introducing three definate clips which are clearly titled. This way I hope that an agents job will be easier when casting. I hope my comments dont put you off.Keep going buddy.

Reply #2

Posted : 23/01/10

David.Laurence
198 posts
last on: 32 min
send private reply

Mm,where to start .It seems,but this is only my opinion,that everythings been slung in the pot and been givena really good mix.

This gives it the feel of a youtube update by a guy who armed with a camera and just fancies a laugh,so has slapped a few random scenes on a DVD.

You appear to have a quirky sense of humour,which comes across in the alleyman bit at the start.So youve established that in 5 seconds,then for some reason alleyman keeps appearing again and again.

Try to define the characters and roles youd be put up for.

Find contrasting pieces that show off your potential.

At the moment Im afraid that with everything on the tape washing from one clip into another ,that a casting agent wont give this showreel anytime at all.

I know its not roses,but you did ask for an opinion.

Feel free to have a butchers at my showreel.

Its not perfect,but Ive tried to define three characters I might cast for,by introducing three definate clips which are clearly titled.

This way I hope that an agents job will be easier when casting.

I hope my comments dont put you off.Keep going buddy.

	Reply #3
Posted : 24/01/10
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 18 hours send private reply	I wouldn't quite agree with all of that, but a lot of the basics don't come over as well as they could do. I actually think you have a structure that is not bad, but needs tidying up all round. My calls: 1. Opening with a 'teaser' piece is not necessarily a bad thing - but it can be construed as wasting time before going into the 'bulk' of the significant material, and you may wish to think about cutting this. Equally, a 'teaser', if it's going to work, should really gear us up for seeing more, and I can't quite see where the 'sting' is in this piece - it all seems a bit unitelligible out of context. As you don't need it, I'd cut it. 2. Montage is not bad - but I don't think the VO is doing you any favours - it just sounds disjointed. Music might be better. The cuts could do with being a little faster - and I would keep the identification to the end of the montage, rather than introduce yourself THEN go into the montage. 3. Scene by scene (ish): Biker scene isn't bad - but you spend far too long allowing the establishing shot to resolve (there must be 30 seconds wasted on just watching the camera peer at the sky, before we zero in on the bikes and the dialogue proper!) and this scene (as do most of the others) outstays its welcome, as Lena suggested. Good stuff, really, but focus on which section really plays out most effectively, probably somewhere in the section between going to you for close up and you putting on your helmet, and cut out the rest. The Alleyman stuff - Not bad, but it is a (perhaps deliberate) cheap and static looking shot. We can only really cope with about 40 seconds of this to camera material before we want to move on. The TV studio - I found this interesting, but it is a bit odd out of context. Again, I think cutting to the chase would benefit it. The 'reporter' - This came across very weirdly. Firstly, it didn't quite convey the impression that you had actually filmed it as an insert in a project (my apologies if you did - I assume it may link to the opening teaser where you were spewing blood? - but directors can sometimes come up with strange choices); it almost reads as if you had deliberately filmed this yourself in order to convey a 'different' type of character, as it seems so divorced from an actual story telling context. This may not be helpful to you. The reason is simply that this 'reportage' comes across as not very dramatic - almost as if you were auditioning for a presenter's role. I am sure this was not the intention of the film in context (where it's quite likely you were playing a reporter who ends up in a terrible situation, I imagine), but it had a distancing effect for me. Nor, it must be said, does the background look (realistically) like it could be Iraq - it looks like a quarry (which I assume is what it is). Dating game - The music is quite intrusive here (though that is clearly in the edit) - the greatest difficulty (because it's a fairly funny and characterful sequence) is that so many of the shots are of the woman you are looking at, and you displaying the back of your head. No-one wants to see this, and you may need to think about recutting the footage to refavour you (or get someone to help you to achieve that). There is then more Alleyman - personally, I don't agree with David's attitude that you shouldn't repeat material (especially if you have a minimum of lengthy pieces with which to work), and I certainly don't think it goes on and on and on, but the second piece of footage doesn't do anything that the first didn't, and the first outstayed it's welcome anyway, so I can understand why people are coming away with that impression. In my opinion, if you wished to 'fill in' space on the reel (because there is a minimum of stuff to use - and I appreciate there may be, because it is genuinely so hard to get showreel material together), I would take something with dynamism and verve, like the biker scene, and split that to 'bookend' the narrative. There is some nice stuff in that scene, and as it stands, it runs too long, so why not halve the difference, and take out an Alleyman 'repeat' that isn't adding much? 4. An ending montage is pretty pointless, and no one will really wish to sit through it (especially as they have already seen an opening montage, and then your performances). If you want this material in, why not make the opening montage much faster, and include this material there - make the cuts move swiftly and allow it more variation of images? This will get the viewers' pulses racing much more. This, I hope, is good advice on tightening and sprucing up the material available as best I can offer it (and, in many ways, a number of the other replies are saying similar things: make the reel less lengthy, get to the point more quickly, and select and lay emphasis on the really standout performances). There are certain inherent limitations that the material itself offers that may be harder to work with; David's suggestion that this all looks like camcorded Youtube footage is, I think, a little bit harsh, but he's right to say that some of this material is a little 'cheap' in execution. I get the feeling that sequences like Alleyman and the TV Studio sequence are meant to look a little bit shoestring, so that is less of a problem - but you should make sure that the better looking material, like the biker stuff, comes to the forefront for this reason. As I am sure Mark would have mentioned if he was still a paid up member of CCP, the sound mix (even to my uneducated ears) also feels 'out'. It may be that this is partly a result of poor sound recording in the first instance, but you may still be able to do something to soften this in the editing suite. Finally, and this is just a passing personal point, but I think an important one, your online profile picture (i.e. your headshot) and the principal characters portrayed in the showreel look virtually nothing like each other. I don't wish to come across as an idiot - I don't mean I couldn't tell that you were the same person from the headshot and the showreel - but what a casting director is looking for is ideally a clear sense of who you are that is delivered from the showreel. They will probably receive this alongside your CV and headshot. I grant you that we all change our hairstyle, facial hair etc. from time to time, and role to role, and showreel work often reflects this - but in the majority of showreel cases, you're wearing a beard. I don't see that in your headshot, where you're clean shaven. In every single case you have long (or longish) hair (indeed, this is clearly part of your selling appeal - as it is of mine - because you get parts like biker, scientist, waster etc. that demand a certain 'unkemptness' in the look); yet, your headshot shows you with close cropped hair. In most of the showreel material, you are not wearing your glasses; but in your headshot, they are prominently displayed. All of this surely gives out conflicting messages, and no casting director ever actually thanks you for allowing them to assume you are one thing, and then proving you are not. I can only conclude your headshot's way out of date, as it seems that you have produced new showreel material recently. It would certainly be better to be trying to sell a coherent identity, if possible.

Reply #3

Posted : 24/01/10

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 18 hours
send private reply

I wouldn't quite agree with all of that, but a lot of the basics don't come over as well as they could do. I actually think you have a structure that is not bad, but needs tidying up all round. My calls:

1. Opening with a 'teaser' piece is not necessarily a bad thing - but it can be construed as wasting time before going into the 'bulk' of the significant material, and you may wish to think about cutting this. Equally, a 'teaser', if it's going to work, should really gear us up for seeing more, and I can't quite see where the 'sting' is in this piece - it all seems a bit unitelligible out of context. As you don't need it, I'd cut it.

2. Montage is not bad - but I don't think the VO is doing you any favours - it just sounds disjointed. Music might be better. The cuts could do with being a little faster - and I would keep the identification to the end of the montage, rather than introduce yourself THEN go into the montage.

3. Scene by scene (ish): Biker scene isn't bad - but you spend far too long allowing the establishing shot to resolve (there must be 30 seconds wasted on just watching the camera peer at the sky, before we zero in on the bikes and the dialogue proper!) and this scene (as do most of the others) outstays its welcome, as Lena suggested. Good stuff, really, but focus on which section really plays out most effectively, probably somewhere in the section between going to you for close up and you putting on your helmet, and cut out the rest.

The Alleyman stuff - Not bad, but it is a (perhaps deliberate) cheap and static looking shot. We can only really cope with about 40 seconds of this to camera material before we want to move on.

The TV studio - I found this interesting, but it is a bit odd out of context. Again, I think cutting to the chase would benefit it.

The 'reporter' - This came across very weirdly. Firstly, it didn't quite convey the impression that you had actually filmed it as an insert in a project (my apologies if you did - I assume it may link to the opening teaser where you were spewing blood? - but directors can sometimes come up with strange choices); it almost reads as if you had deliberately filmed this yourself in order to convey a 'different' type of character, as it seems so divorced from an actual story telling context. This may not be helpful to you. The reason is simply that this 'reportage' comes across as not very dramatic - almost as if you were auditioning for a presenter's role. I am sure this was not the intention of the film in context (where it's quite likely you were playing a reporter who ends up in a terrible situation, I imagine), but it had a distancing effect for me. Nor, it must be said, does the background look (realistically) like it could be Iraq - it looks like a quarry (which I assume is what it is).

Dating game - The music is quite intrusive here (though that is clearly in the edit) - the greatest difficulty (because it's a fairly funny and characterful sequence) is that so many of the shots are of the woman you are looking at, and you displaying the back of your head. No-one wants to see this, and you may need to think about recutting the footage to refavour you (or get someone to help you to achieve that).

There is then more Alleyman - personally, I don't agree with David's attitude that you shouldn't repeat material (especially if you have a minimum of lengthy pieces with which to work), and I certainly don't think it goes on and on and on, but the second piece of footage doesn't do anything that the first didn't, and the first outstayed it's welcome anyway, so I can understand why people are coming away with that impression. In my opinion, if you wished to 'fill in' space on the reel (because there is a minimum of stuff to use - and I appreciate there may be, because it *is* genuinely so hard to get showreel material together), I would take something with dynamism and verve, like the biker scene, and split that to 'bookend' the narrative. There is some nice stuff in that scene, and as it stands, it runs too long, so why not halve the difference, and take out an Alleyman 'repeat' that isn't adding much?

4. An ending montage is pretty pointless, and no one will really wish to sit through it (especially as they have already seen an opening montage, and then your performances). If you want this material in, why not make the opening montage much faster, and include this material there - make the cuts move swiftly and allow it more variation of images? This will get the viewers' pulses racing much more.

This, I hope, is good advice on tightening and sprucing up the material available as best I can offer it (and, in many ways, a number of the other replies are saying similar things: make the reel less lengthy, get to the point more quickly, and select and lay emphasis on the really standout performances). There are certain inherent limitations that the material itself offers that may be harder to work with; David's suggestion that this all looks like camcorded Youtube footage is, I think, a little bit harsh, but he's right to say that some of this material is a little 'cheap' in execution. I get the feeling that sequences like Alleyman and the TV Studio sequence are *meant* to look a little bit shoestring, so that is less of a problem - but you should make sure that the better looking material, like the biker stuff, comes to the forefront for this reason. As I am sure Mark would have mentioned if he was still a paid up member of CCP, the sound mix (even to my uneducated ears) also feels 'out'. It may be that this is partly a result of poor sound recording in the first instance, but you may still be able to do something to soften this in the editing suite.

Finally, and this is just a passing personal point, but I think an important one, your online profile picture (i.e. your headshot) and the principal characters portrayed in the showreel look virtually nothing like each other. I don't wish to come across as an idiot - I don't mean I couldn't tell that you were the same person from the headshot and the showreel - but what a casting director is looking for is ideally a clear sense of who you are that is delivered from the showreel. They will probably receive this alongside your CV and headshot. I grant you that we all change our hairstyle, facial hair etc. from time to time, and role to role, and showreel work often reflects this - but in the majority of showreel cases, you're wearing a beard. I don't see that in your headshot, where you're clean shaven. In *every single case* you have long (or longish) hair (indeed, this is clearly part of your selling appeal - as it is of mine - because you get parts like biker, scientist, waster etc. that demand a certain 'unkemptness' in the look); yet, your headshot shows you with close cropped hair. In most of the showreel material, you are not wearing your glasses; but in your headshot, they are prominently displayed. All of this surely gives out conflicting messages, and no casting director ever actually thanks you for allowing them to assume you are one thing, and then proving you are not. I can only conclude your headshot's way out of date, as it seems that you have produced new showreel material recently. It would certainly be better to be trying to sell a coherent identity, if possible.

	Reply #4
Posted : 24/01/10
David.Laurence 198 posts last on: 32 min send private reply	yea, I pretty much agree with a lot of your points. I would just like to add at this point, that my observations were not intended to just be negative. I hope it's understood that I just put down the way the showreel came accross to me. Id rather be truthful about things I say on this site. Love or hate me, I will never pretend I like something , when I don't and visa versa. I hope that you continue to hone your showreel until it represents you in the light that it should. Because it's a very important tool in landing you work. And if it doesn't do you justice , then it's pointless having it in the first place.

Reply #4

Posted : 24/01/10

David.Laurence
198 posts
last on: 32 min
send private reply

yea, I pretty much agree with a lot of your points. I would just like to add at this point, that my observations were not intended to just be negative. I hope it's understood that I just put down the way the showreel came accross to me.
Id rather be truthful about things I say on this site. Love or hate me, I will never pretend I like something , when I don't and visa versa. I hope that you continue to hone your showreel until it represents you in the light that it should.
Because it's a very important tool in landing you work. And if it doesn't do you justice , then it's pointless having it in the first place.

	Reply #5
Posted : 24/01/10
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 18 hours send private reply	Well, I understood where you were coming from, I think, David, though it's not my showreel! My only real 'dispute' (if you wish to call it that) was that the reel looked especially low budget - by the standards of some I've seen, I can at least tell that most of the material here was shot as part of a concrete production process. And you can only ever work with the material you have. But I agree - because the material is all a little low budget and shoestring looking (and most of it, I assume, must have come from student films or low budgets that were never intended for cinematic release) then there is twice the work needed to tidy it, and make it look as good as it can do. I think Kirk asked for constructive criticism though, and I would hope we are all offering advice that is constructive. It seems that way to me, because we are finding ways of trying to make what is already in place read as well as it possibly can do. And I would assume, Kirk, with all due respect, that you may be a little uncertain with the attitudes of your showreel editors towards the finished product, otherwise why canvas us (who are not self - proclaimed experts on the matter) for advice on how it is 'reading'? If, of course, you edited the material together yourself, then I think you're to be saluted for going to the effort (a lot of us don't just have the nous to do this for ourselves), and you are actually in a very solid position to implement any comments immediately, rectify some details, and perhaps come out with a showreel that 'reads' better with a minimum of adjustment.

Reply #5

Posted : 24/01/10

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 18 hours
send private reply

Well, *I* understood where you were coming from, I think, David, though it's not my showreel! My only real 'dispute' (if you wish to call it that) was that the reel looked especially low budget - by the standards of some I've seen, I can at least tell that most of the material here was shot as part of a concrete production process. And you can only ever work with the material you have. But I agree - because the material is all a little low budget and shoestring looking (and most of it, I assume, must have come from student films or low budgets that were never intended for cinematic release) then there is twice the work needed to tidy it, and make it look as good as it can do. I think Kirk asked for constructive criticism though, and I would hope we are all offering advice that is constructive. It seems that way to me, because we are finding ways of trying to make what is already in place read as well as it possibly can do. And I would assume, Kirk, with all due respect, that you may be a little uncertain with the attitudes of your showreel editors towards the finished product, otherwise why canvas us (who are not self - proclaimed experts on the matter) for advice on how it is 'reading'?

If, of course, you edited the material together yourself, then I think you're to be saluted for going to the effort (a lot of us don't just have the nous to do this for ourselves), and you are actually in a very solid position to implement any comments immediately, rectify some details, and perhaps come out with a showreel that 'reads' better with a minimum of adjustment.

	Reply #6
Posted : 26/01/10
kirkmoore 80 posts last on: 13/01/12 send private reply	Thank you for the comments, David, Lee and Lena. I did actually edit the showreel myself! That may perhaps explain the 'everything thrown in the pot' look! :-P The comments are correct regarding the low budget and student look - I've been working towards getting a showreel together by any means necessary... so that means taking whatever I can get! And you get whatever I took! The biggest pain in the back passage is the material I have to use. I make no boasts about my acting prowess, but I know that there is a film I've made with some great footage of me, but I can't get my hands on the shots because of a whole host of monetary, budgeting and legal issues regarding the production company. If I had've had that material, it would have been a centrepiece of my showreel. Alas.... Now, to address Lee's points opens new window because he can't remember all of Lee's always eloquent answers 1.) The 'teaser' was a bit of whimsy I decided to put on the front of the reel because I say the line 'This... is... the film now'. Y'know, as an intro, like... On the previous cut of my reel, it got a lot of positive feedback, so it stayed in. Oh, the hubris on my part! Unfortunately, the shot is about all I can use in that sequence from that film. The rest of that scene is in long shot, focussing on the actresses' buttocks and thighs, with me gamely acting all bloody, noble and shot up, far away in the background. Truth be told, my 'pain' acting is painful enough to watch in long shot, so I've left it out... 2.) The v/o was an experiment to see if I can salvage any footage from the scene I had had opening my first showreel. The 'twist' in that was my face was not revealed until the final seconds of the piece. Not the best to use in the showreel, but I liked my voice acting... Again, alas, the hubris on my part!!! As it stands, I'll probably be taking out the first montage and putting the second one at the start, just with the music, rather than a voiceover... 3.) a) I was debating over the top and tail of the biker scene. Its already been edited down massively from what it was. I did congratulate myself (again, the hubris!!!!) that no-one has noticed the invisible editing I did regarding the soundtrack - the bike starts before I start it, if you know what I mean. Self congratulatory editing aside, I can trim from the start without losing too much context, and I do spend a bit too much time fannying about with the helmet, so snip snip snip I will go go go... b.) The Alleyman bit is supposed to be a weblog-style thing, so it supposed to look a bit cheap and cheerful too... I'll cut it before it cuts to the shot of me pointing at the rubbish - that should take off a good ten seconds or so... c.) I suppose I could disperse bits of my janitor character throughout the reel. He was a 'silent stalker' type, and that scene was the one that had the most dialogue! There are two confrontation scenes from other parts of the film, so I'll take a look at them. d.) The 'reporter' piece is supposed to be unsweetened, raw footage, found after I was shot (so, yes, it does link up with the opening shot). I can see what what you mean when it comes across as 'shot for showreel'. I can't really use the stuff from when I get shot, because my performance is pants (and in the background!), but I may the stuff from just before 'the report', where I argue with the off camera 'director/camera op', just up to where I start the report. Cut it there, and it could show my Reporter 'getting into character' instead. e.) The 'Dating' scene. I could play around with other shots of me from the same scene, while keeping the same soundtrack - it is a v/o after all. ME ME ME!!! f.) The main reason I put the Alleyman 'tag' on was to finish the showreel. By the comments I'm getting, I may have finished it off in another way entirely! Out it goes! You are right about the availability of showreel material - there are at least four films from which I have only included about two seconds of useable footage from each... 4. Already addressed the montage issue - all the end montage will go to the front. Ka-pow! Take that, Bat Man! And finally (finally!)... I am well aware of the disparity between my showreel and my headshot. I've been trying to get new ones done for a while, with me all bearded... but it seems every time I'm about to get them done, I have to shave the blasted thing off! I'm in process of growing a goatee at the moment, and I hope (and pray) to have new shots done by the end of next month. The showreel is part one of my plan for rebranding myself from the nebbish skinhead look. Part two is the headshots. Part Three is an agent. Part Four is no more unpaid / student work! All the comments are taken with gratitude. You have to have something of a thick skin to do this job, so I take no offence! And anyway, after all, I did title this thread 'Please Tear My Showreel Apart!'. If anyone else has any more comments, please feel free to stick your knives in! :0P It looks like I've got a double date this weekend - one with the tax man and the other with my editing software! BCNU.

Reply #6

Posted : 26/01/10

kirkmoore
80 posts
last on: 13/01/12
send private reply

Thank you for the comments, David, Lee and Lena.

I did actually edit the showreel myself! That may perhaps explain the 'everything thrown in the pot' look! :-P

The comments are correct regarding the low budget and student look - I've been working towards getting a showreel together by any means necessary... so that means taking whatever I can get! And you get whatever I took!

The biggest pain in the back passage is the material I have to use. I make no boasts about my acting prowess, but I know that there is a film I've made with some great footage of me, but I can't get my hands on the shots because of a whole host of monetary, budgeting and legal issues regarding the production company. If I had've had that material, it would have been a centrepiece of my showreel. Alas....

Now, to address Lee's points *opens new window because he can't remember all of Lee's always eloquent answers*

1.)
The 'teaser' was a bit of whimsy I decided to put on the front of the reel because I say the line 'This... is... the film now'. Y'know, as an intro, like... On the previous cut of my reel, it got a lot of positive feedback, so it stayed in. Oh, the hubris on my part! Unfortunately, the shot is about all I can use in that sequence from that film. The rest of that scene is in long shot, focussing on the actresses' buttocks and thighs, with me gamely acting all bloody, noble and shot up, far away in the background. Truth be told, my 'pain' acting is painful enough to watch in long shot, so I've left it out...

2.)
The v/o was an experiment to see if I can salvage any footage from the scene I had had opening my first showreel. The 'twist' in that was my face was not revealed until the final seconds of the piece. Not the best to use in the showreel, but I liked my voice acting... Again, alas, the hubris on my part!!! As it stands, I'll probably be taking out the first montage and putting the second one at the start, just with the music, rather than a voiceover...

3.)
a) I was debating over the top and tail of the biker scene. Its already been edited down massively from what it was. I did congratulate myself (again, the hubris!!!!) that no-one has noticed the invisible editing I did regarding the soundtrack - the bike starts before I start it, if you know what I mean. Self congratulatory editing aside, I can trim from the start without losing too much context, and I do spend a bit too much time fannying about with the helmet, so snip snip snip I will go go go...

b.) The Alleyman bit is supposed to be a weblog-style thing, so it supposed to look a bit cheap and cheerful too... I'll cut it before it cuts to the shot of me pointing at the rubbish - that should take off a good ten seconds or so...

c.) I suppose I could disperse bits of my janitor character throughout the reel. He was a 'silent stalker' type, and that scene was the one that had the most dialogue! There are two confrontation scenes from other parts of the film, so I'll take a look at them.

d.) The 'reporter' piece is supposed to be unsweetened, raw footage, found after I was shot (so, yes, it does link up with the opening shot). I can see what what you mean when it comes across as 'shot for showreel'. I can't really use the stuff from when I get shot, because my performance is pants (and in the background!), but I may the stuff from just before 'the report', where I argue with the off camera 'director/camera op', just up to where I start the report. Cut it there, and it could show my Reporter 'getting into character' instead.

e.) The 'Dating' scene. I could play around with other shots of me from the same scene, while keeping the same soundtrack - it is a v/o after all. ME ME ME!!!

f.) The main reason I put the Alleyman 'tag' on was to finish the showreel. By the comments I'm getting, I may have finished it off in another way entirely! Out it goes! You are right about the availability of showreel material - there are at least four films from which I have only included about two seconds of useable footage from each...

4. Already addressed the montage issue - all the end montage will go to the front. Ka-pow! Take that, Bat Man!

And finally (finally!)... I am well aware of the disparity between my showreel and my headshot. I've been trying to get new ones done for a while, with me all bearded... but it seems every time I'm about to get them done, I have to shave the blasted thing off! I'm in process of growing a goatee at the moment, and I hope (and pray) to have new shots done by the end of next month. The showreel is part one of my plan for rebranding myself from the nebbish skinhead look. Part two is the headshots. Part Three is an agent. Part Four is no more unpaid / student work!

All the comments are taken with gratitude. You have to have something of a thick skin to do this job, so I take no offence!

And anyway, after all, I did title this thread 'Please Tear My Showreel Apart!'.

If anyone else has any more comments, please feel free to stick your knives in! :0P

It looks like I've got a double date this weekend - one with the tax man and the other with my editing software!

BCNU.

	Reply #7
Posted : 26/01/10
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 18 hours send private reply	Actually, that all sounds pretty good to me, Kirk, 'on spec', as it were. It is frequently the case (or so I'm told) that material that can actually make for a pretty good showreel comes over poorly because of difficulties with the structure, as opposed to difficulty with the material. I think that's the case with a lot of the stuff here - and most of your suggestions sound very wise - cutting some of the scenes down, getting some to stop and start at different points etc. It may sometimes require an outside eye to see certain difficulties, and so, I hope any further edit, taking into account the issues discussed, will come across as significantly improved. I agree with you that, as far as things go, you cannot necessarily always (or easily) make use of top notch footage - but it is certainly the case, in a competitive market, that you need to make the footage you have got read as well as it possibly can. Given that you are editing on your own behalf, there is no intrinsic cost to you in terms of making the reel in the first place (though, of course, there will be some costs accrued in sending it out) - but you're right, having a reel in place at all may make the difference between gaining better quality screen work or not, and so, it's worth investing in a 'lower budget' version at this point (put together as well as possible), and then updating it with new (hopefully more 'expensive') footage as and when. I can also sympathise with the idea that you have some great footage being held back from you by a production company you've worked for - I had exactly the same problem until very recently, and chose to stay my hand regarding getting a showreel together until I could use that footage as a centrepiece. Even now I have it, I am not certain that it will read as well as it could 'out of context', but we'll see. For all that I have a very good relationship with the production team, for various reasons commercial and practical, it took me two and a half years to get this footage after I'd filmed it, and I have still been asked (politely, of course) to use it purely in private promotion for the forseeable future, pending a distribution deal. Ironically, for all that we tend to gripe on the CCP forums about student producers failing to get copies of material to the actors who perform for them, it is sometimes just as difficult to get material from reputable production companies. This is not least because, the higher profile the production, the more the footage tends to be hedged around with limits on usage, the more likely the footage is to be rendered unavailable until such time as a broadcast is greenlit etc. etc. From that point of view, at least student footage is more or less available when you ask for it...provided the students are prepared to run off a copy of the footage for you! So, I hope you get to see your main footage in the fullness of time!

Reply #7

Posted : 26/01/10

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 18 hours
send private reply

Actually, that all sounds pretty good to me, Kirk, 'on spec', as it were. It is frequently the case (or so I'm told) that material that can actually make for a pretty good showreel comes over poorly because of difficulties with the structure, as opposed to difficulty with the material. I think that's the case with a lot of the stuff here - and most of your suggestions sound very wise - cutting some of the scenes down, getting some to stop and start at different points etc. It may sometimes require an outside eye to see certain difficulties, and so, I hope any further edit, taking into account the issues discussed, will come across as significantly improved.

I agree with you that, as far as things go, you cannot necessarily always (or easily) make use of top notch footage - but it is certainly the case, in a competitive market, that you need to make the footage you have got read as well as it possibly can. Given that you are editing on your own behalf, there is no intrinsic cost to you in terms of making the reel in the first place (though, of course, there will be some costs accrued in sending it out) - but you're right, having a reel in place at all may make the difference between gaining better quality screen work or not, and so, it's worth investing in a 'lower budget' version at this point (put together as well as possible), and then updating it with new (hopefully more 'expensive') footage as and when.

I can also sympathise with the idea that you have some great footage being held back from you by a production company you've worked for - I had *exactly* the same problem until very recently, and chose to stay my hand regarding getting a showreel together until I could use that footage as a centrepiece. Even now I have it, I am not certain that it will read as well as it could 'out of context', but we'll see. For all that I have a very good relationship with the production team, for various reasons commercial and practical, it took me two and a half years to get this footage after I'd filmed it, and I have still been asked (politely, of course) to use it purely in private promotion for the forseeable future, pending a distribution deal.

Ironically, for all that we tend to gripe on the CCP forums about student producers failing to get copies of material to the actors who perform for them, it is sometimes just as difficult to get material from reputable production companies. This is not least because, the higher profile the production, the more the footage tends to be hedged around with limits on usage, the more likely the footage is to be rendered unavailable until such time as a broadcast is greenlit etc. etc. From that point of view, at least student footage is more or less available when you ask for it...provided the students are prepared to run off a copy of the footage for you!

So, I hope you get to see your main footage in the fullness of time!

	Reply #8
Posted : 26/01/10
Law.Ballard 64 posts last on: 16 min send private reply	Like the teaser at the end, would put it at beginning. I think the other shots too long, cut to the action in them.

	Reply #9
Posted : 27/01/10
kirkmoore 80 posts last on: 13/01/12 send private reply	I shot the film in late 2007. It's been hovering around a distribution deal since late 2008/early 2009... I can't even get access to the scenes that have been cut from the movie! This year is the closest the damn thing has got to a release in any form.... Here's hoping! I've been hanging off putting together a showreel since the end of 2008, but after doing half a dozen films last year, I decided to make do with what I had. If the material I need does finally materialise, it doesn't make for too much bother to bung it into the mix... Now I just have to play the waiting game...

Reply #9

Posted : 27/01/10

kirkmoore
80 posts
last on: 13/01/12
send private reply

I shot the film in late 2007. It's been hovering around a distribution deal since late 2008/early 2009... I can't even get access to the scenes that have been cut from the movie! This year is the closest the damn thing has got to a release in any form.... Here's hoping!

I've been hanging off putting together a showreel since the end of 2008, but after doing half a dozen films last year, I decided to make do with what I had. If the material I need does finally materialise, it doesn't make for too much bother to bung it into the mix...

Now I just have to play the waiting game...

[add comments | all topics]

Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of Casting Call Pro, nor have they been vetted by Casting Call Pro staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.