Hide
The Blue Compass Network
Please select which of the site you wish to access from the Blue Compass Network.
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |
| Topic: Making own Showreel - Need some guidence! | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hi All Being a fairly proficient editor and having access to camera equipment, I thought I'd have a crack at doing my own showreel. Having barely any camera time though, I was thinking of filming a few monologues/scenes with fellow actor buddies to pad it out a bit. First off, can anyone see any problems with that? Second... Any views on including footage that contains swearing? And finally... What are the laws on using audio tracks by professional artists? Many thanks in advance. Chris Lockley. | ||
| [add comments | all topics] |
| Reply #1 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 18/02/10 | |
 anonymous | It's a tricky one...Sometimes the production values on these made-for-showreel scenes are so poor that it makes the whole thing (and then, by association, you) look amateurish. I've also seen some of the most appalling acting EVER on some of these scenes where people are paired up with another actor also wanting a quick showreel. I guess if you know who you are acting with, that shouldn't be a problem though. Make sure you have chemistry on screen and that the scene suits you both and make sure YOU are the star of the scene and not them! As for swearing, I find it a bit distracting and can sometimes be used as a cheap shock tactic where strong acting would have a better effect. There's no point ranting and raving and cursing for the sake of it, it can get really boring! Anyway, just my thoughts - others may disagree! :) Good luck, either way! |
| Reply #2 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 18/02/10 | |
| Hi Chris, I think the answers to your questions as far as I am aware are: 1. How you choose to put your showreel together is all very relative, and it rather depends on what purpose you wish it to serve for you. There is a very good argument that states, as a showreel's main purpose is to prove to a casting director that you can, in effect, put your money where your mouth is by showing them examples of solid work that you have been employed on, then filming your own inserts is a little bit pointless and counter-productive. But, on the other hand, if what you are suggesting is supplementing small quantities of broadcastable material with newly shot stuff, then you can probably get away with it, and the new sequences may allow you to demonstrate more on-screen versatility than would otherwise be possible. I remain unconvinced of the merits of shooting an *entire* showreel from scratch. If you do film your own material, you will need to ensure that as many of the values as possible are as good as they would be had you been employed, at the very least, on a piece that would be capable of going straight to DVD broadcast. In other words, your fellow actors need to be strong, the quality of your script is *vitally* important, the lighting, sound quality and so on, cannot be half measures, and the scene needs to be shot and cut in a visually stimulating way. If you cannot achieve these sorts of levels, I don't think recording your own material is worth bothering with, unless you are going to use it very fleetingly to fill gaps. It is worth remembering that probably about 70% of no budget or student films you might shoot should not, by rights, be considered worthy of your showreel, and many of these pieces have some kind of budget and constituted team behind them. So, the work really has to be good. This may seem like quibbling, but, honestly, a casting director can tell a badly lit shot, a badly framed shot etc. a mile off, and they do tend to assume it equates to you not being involved with prestigious enough projects. Get your own material white hot, on the other hand, and it's possible no one will bat an eyelid when it makes it into a final edit, because it will look (believably) like it might have been taken from a low budget film job! 2. I don't think swearing is of any consquence in context; I don't actually think any casting director really cares about it - they are some of the most hard-nosed people working in this industry, and it's nonsense to think a CD would dismiss you because 'they didn't like you swearing '. Having said that, gratuitous swearing in every piece on the reel, or in an extended section of footage, probably comes across as very one-tone, so it is better to vary the palette, I suspect. 3. I have no idea how the law actually stands on use of music: all that can be said is that the vast majority of actors (and, indeed, showreel providers) appear to flout it, and face no consequences, so it may be that, because a showreel is held to be for 'private distribution', it is a less dramatic issue than it would otherwise be held to be. That's my tuppence worth. | |
| Reply #3 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 18/02/10 | |
| Thanks for your comments guys. Some good points. I've produced a few corporate films on the side so I'm fairly confident that I can make it look professional. I just need to think carefully about content... My inital thoughts were to do several little contrasting snippets, vox pop type things.... a few seconds each maybe. Shooting and editing them in a way that makes it look like they were part of some full length projects. Maybe even writing some original script... High emotion type stuff... Shouting, crying and so on... And if I use a few existing monologues, only shooting the interesting powerful/ funny bits. Because I figure no CD is going to want to sit through an entire speech! What do people think? I figure I'm only going to run into problems if people start questioning where the material came from or what film that was taken from? Oh and on the subject of monologues and using existing scripts...am I going to have to pay to use them? Copyright and all that... Thanks again. | |
| Reply #4 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 20/02/10 | |
| Hi Chris I believe that you can use licensed music in the background without having to pay anything/worry about getting sued. You are showcasing your acting talent but not advertising/selling a product, making political statements or making money from commisions or product placements etc. I can't be 100% sure where the law stands as copyright is extremely complicated and there are so many myths surrounding it (e.g. you are allowed to use up to 30 seconds for free which is not the case). I also think youtube has kind of changed things too. When something becomes the social norm it becomes difficult to take legal action against one person when half the world is doing the exact same thing! On the whole showreel debate, I have been writing scenes in order to make my own showreel clips because the kinds of parts/characters/scripts I want to do don't tend to come up often! It would be foolish for me to wait for the perfect acting job when I can show people what I can do right now. Also quality of script writing is a major issue these days and I have seen enough apalling, stereotypical, grammatically incorrect scripts from "professionals" to last me a life time! Lastly, even if you get a good role in a good production with a good script you cannot guarantee that scenes will be suitable for a showreel e.g. you may be playing alongside someone who looks too similar to you (or even worse, is a better actor than you lol), you might not get enough 'face time' or the scene may be too offensive or not make any sense without the context/prior knowledge of the character. All of which could put people off you. I also wonder what people mean when they say it is important for it to "look professional". I mean obviously shakey webcams are not going to look good but digital cameras have come a long way and can produce very clear, good quality images. So I was just wondering what is it that casting directors might see that would make them think it is unprofessional? Or are we talking more about editing/post production. | |
| Reply #5 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 20/02/10 | |
| I would say it would be 50/50 if you had a decent camera and you used new pieces of writing then I would think that it would be alright as you could pass it off a low budget film. I also gives you the oppourtunity to show characters that you would want to play or feel that you can play. If you use stuff in print you have copy right problems and it can look really unprofessional and very amateurish. So the people viewing it will be focusing on the poor quality rather then on your acting. Good luck xox | |
| Reply #6 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 20/02/10 | |
| I don't see why a "shot from scratch" showreel can't work for you (if the production values, acting and script are up to scratch) especially if you can use it to spice up footage you already have - as Lee suggests. As long as you avoid the obvious pitfalls. I do think monologues are usually a mistake (because they almost always look "shot for showreel")unless they are quite short and they have another actor in shot who is filmed listening and reacting to what you say. I don't think there's any point in having theatre work on a showreel either. I agree that a poor script is a major turn off - even worse though is a script blatantly pinched from a soap. If you see a showreel where an actor says: "I'm Inspector xxxx from Sunhill" and you sit there thinking "No you're not" - well, there's the chance of the actor convincing someone they have been cast in something blown right there! The other obvious (but surprisingly common) pitfall is including several clips on the showreel showing the same actors playing different roles. I'm redoing my showreel soon. I'll be getting rid of the montage (Mark Kempner will be cheering!) and trying to include a bit more variety, with clips from various sources. Who knows whether it will make any difference whatsoever? Worth a punt though? | |
| Reply #7 | |
|---|---|
| Posted : 20/02/10 | |
| The real risk with monologues, Chris, is that you have to make them look integral, because the last thing a casting director wants to see is an actor specifically performing a monologue. This is simply because extended monologues are practically *never* used as a screen device, and are a preeminent stage convention, and if you are not canny about your use of them, you simply come across as a stage actor who does not understand screen requirements properly. Although Jenna said, perfectly wisely, that *actual* screen shoots may sometimes yield footage in which you are not strongly favoured by the camera in the course of a dialogue (for example, in a two shot in which you are appearing alongside a more 'leading' actor whom the story is concerned with), there is a sense in which this is still better material for a showreel than any solo piece you shoot yourself because it demostrates that you have the essential screen skill of responding to your fellow actors. The two points to remember about what a camera actually looks for in your performance during a screen shoot: 1. In close up, the camera does, indeed, focus on your delivery to the exclusion of all else, and close up is ideal for revealing depth of emotion to camera, which is why it gets used. Jenna is right to say that, sometimes, *standard* work you do will not favour you with close ups if other characters in the scene are considered more 'integral' to the story than your own. But close ups are not really about the words you deliver, so much as the reactions that can be seen. This, in many ways, is the VITAL (and I mean VITAL) distinction between what is done on stage and what is done on screen. On stage, we are listening to words, and watching physical demonstrations that help to conjure up a story. On screen, we are watching reactions. Therefore, a monologue, as such, is useless for you, because no-one is interested in seeing that you can talk in the general direction of a camera. They are interested in seeing reaction. By all means, come up with a scene that can allow you to show some deep emotion in close up, but try and work out what the scene is actually about, who the other characters may be, and what reactions you are going through in response to dealing with them. The actual number of words you use may be pretty limited. You may require someone else to stand in, so you can cut away to *their* reaction to your words at specific points. 2. In a two shot, the whole emphasis is on reaction and interaction. The reason why I think you can see 'specially produced' scenes between two people that favour one person for the sake of promoting them, and which never work, is because they miss the total point of a two person scene (this is ridiculous given that the showreel providers are supposed to be filmmakers: either they are genuinely know-nothings who shouldn't be allowed near a camera or, more likely, they know what they would do in a shoot, but are prepared to cater to actors' 'whims' for the sake of making money without caring to enlighten them as to actual screen practice!). In a two shot, the person who is *not* talking is very often a significant focus of attention (more so, sometimes, than the person who *is* talking) because what is important about the conversation (and what helps us understand story development) is the reaction of the other person. So, any scene in which an individual features intended to 'back you up', but who is listening, whilst not talking, is actually *taking the focus* from you - you are certainly as well off to script a scene for two performers, and split the focus, conversationally, between you. Reaction between performers on screen is always vital because what is conveyed tonally, through subtextual reactions on stage, namely relationships between the characters driving the narrative, has to be conveyed more subtly on screen. The other (perhaps obvious) point is that no solo material should ever be addressed direct to camera! As to Leila's question of what is/isn't 'professional', I think we *are* talking primarily about editing and production conception. Naturally, any of us can tell when an acting performance is not up to snuff, but let's assume, for the most part, that most actors employed on most screen projects put in decent performances. 'Professionalism' then really lies in the crew getting all the technical usages to an accomplished standard. That means; framing the shots effectively, lighting the shots effectively (i.e. not too dark, not too light), getting the sound levels correct (you'd be astonished how many student setups fail that test), getting an interesting and varied amount of coverage/shooting from the right angles to make the pictures 'read' well; preferably dressing a set decently and costuming well so the costumes do not look cheap; matching continuity properly etc. etc. All these are basic needs that have to be in place during the shoot, not during the edit (which can only 'tidy up' what has already been shot), and which ruin the film if they fail to be done properly. It is certainly true that just because a film is a low budget doesn't mean fantastic results cannot be achieved by an accomplished crew, and that some broadcast material is actually pretty cheaply shot, and rough around the edges. You may find that a low budget backed by an independently wealthy producer gives you better looking results than featuring in a scene in a high profile, but cheap, mid-afternoon soap, for instance. But, by and large, the bigger the budget, and the more experienced the camera team employed, the less you have to do to make the results appear totally professional. One rule of thumb that is sometimes suggested is that, in an ideal world, all material on showreel should have been 'broadcast' or made to 'broadcast standard' (in other words, if not actually shown on TV, in cinema, streamed on the Internet etc., it was designed with the intention of travelling the international film festival circuit, being sent as a pilot to TV companies etc.). Failing that, it should look up to broadcast standard e.g. a very decent student film, or a self produced piece that is extremely well shot and edited (and may be actually more effective in this respect than some cheapo student jobs!). | |
| [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.
