ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXFeature or Short?
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
So I'm neck deep in pre production on my short, and contrary to my last post the production is turning into an utter nightmare - the usual low budget shenanigans involved with begging and borrowing, and people-management of people who are getting paid stupid rates to try and achieve cinematic miracles. I think I've been too ambitious and it's biting me back. As a director I love this film and it is my baby. As a producer I was thinking about quitting it all and doing something else at 3am this morning, it's a weird tension.
So the question is, is a micro budget feature THAT much more hassle to put together than a low budget short? If you're going to put yourself up for two months of hell, should you try and at least come out with a feature film. I've had a number of people tell me to stop wasting time on shorts, and another number of people telling me it's the only way to forge a directing career. The production experience is magic, don't get me wrong, but I'm wondering whether I've made the wrong decision and maybe I should have made two less ambitious 5K shorts for my money, or conversely just thrown myself into the fire and made a micro-budget feature.
What are the thoughts of the panel?
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Two months for a short? This is why it's becoming a nightmare! And it's also why you make shorts - to get practice and slicker on projects that don't 'matter'.
Features are bigger than long shorts, though. In order to make any sense whatsoever, you need to get the legal framework in place, which costs money, which takes money away from the screen. Want crew to work for more than 7 days? Most of them have to be paid PAYE (by law, there's no way to get around it), which means setting up a payroll, which means holiday pay, NI, NMW (NLW), etc. Insurance is a bigger deal, everything is a bigger deal - and that's aside from writing a story that's compelling for 90' and maintaining energy over several weeks where everyone is tired and fed up.
I'd go so far as to say you just cannot direct and produce a feature yourself. They are such different jobs and will pull you in two different directions at the same time. They're both full-time jobs! If you want to direct and produce, get a line producer or PM to manage the shoot for you.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Ha, yes two months Paddy, and we're shooting at the end of Jan so it'll be three - it's driving me nuts but it's been a fantastic education, I agree with you. (The reason is the set build, the nightmarish set build from hell, it's taken this long to find space and find the people and materials to be able to build a complete set for the money.)
I wouldn't dream of both producing and directing a feature Paddy, I very much appreciate how difficult both roles are and I don't love producing nearly enough, but I was interested in opinions as it's been mooted a few times by various people. I also know directors who've gone straight to feature without a short and they've seen more festival success, and arguably have earned more directing credibility for going that more direct route.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
If you can do a "My Dinner with Andre", do a feature. Otherwise, don't.
If you think a short is a nightmare on a really decent budget, can you imagine the nightmare of a feature on the same budget?
As for the feature argument; of course it's better to have a feature to build a career. But a bad feature is worse for a career than a really good short.
Of course your short is taking forever since you don't have a proper budget for what you want to do. But there's that old adage: Fast--Cheap--Good. You can pick any 2, but not all three. You can have it fast and cheap, but it won't be good. If you pick "Good and Fast" it won't be cheap. In your case, it sounds like you're going the "Cheap and Good" route (but you can't have it fast).
From what you're saying, it sounds like you don't have the chops yet to make a good feature for no money. Nearly no one does. Because, in the end, a cheap feature isn't just directing. It's directing with limitations that are extreme. Micro budgets have to be shot incredibly quickly, and to be any good, the director has to know how to work under pressure to the point that those limitations end up making the film better, not worse.
So you have to ask yourself this: do you have enough experience to make a better film with less money, than if you had a proper budget for the same script? Most directors that do low budget just skimp on all sorts of things; like coverage, for example. Or they'll make producing mistakes like scoring an amazing DP that's done big movies. The problem is, he may not know how to light a scene without a 3 ton truck of equipment instead of 3 lights in a van. Instead of just skimping, a good director finds ways to make a better film. Instead of a tiny bit of basic coverage, he/she might find that a single master with well staged actors is better than the planned 10 camera set-ups that you'd never have the time to do anyway. Does that make sense?
It sounds to me like you're learning a lot on this short. Just keep going with that.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Thanks Dan/Paddy. Really cool, you two are now my unofficial film making mentors and will be credited appropriately in my Oscar speech. ;)
It's really interesting to hear your take on budget feature making Dan. I did also start this with the idea of trying to snag a big name DOP, Actor or designer but it quickly became apparent that those guys would possibly be writing cheques my directing chops couldn't cash.
It's definitely an experience producing and directing, it's good to be able to set the parameters but I think I'd just like to direct after this, I honestly don't know if I have the stamina to do it again!!
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Directing and producing sucks. I mean it just sucks. I'll never do it again. Ever. Something always suffers. Always. My advice would be to take a week or two and do nothing but storyboards. Every scene. Seriously. Producing in principle photography while directing at the same time... if you don't have, at the very least, all of your coverage mapped out to extreme detail, it's going to be a bad trip, man. It will also help if you post the storyboards somewhere on set where everyone can see them, the shoot will go much smoother. Even if you change every shot, it will still go smoother if everyone knows what you're trying for at least.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
@Dan Selakovich I'm lucky in that my fight coordinator is also a really experienced film maker and is associate producing with me, filling in gaps, doing contracts etc, and he will production manage the shoot, thank the bloody stars.
He picks the phone up on a daily basis just to ask if I'm ok, and I can't overstate how much that has made the whole process easier. Producing, I'm finding, can be a lonely old road.
I think this is my first and last outing as both but it is valuable. I'd still like to have a bash at producing for someone else though, I can see how it would be incredibly rewarding shepherding a project to fruition without the worry of having to shoot it too.
Just got a new designer who has an unbelievable work ethic and management skills so my plan from here on in - apart from sorting the catering - is to focus on the shooting script and boards. Finally, some fun!! :)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah
Paddy and Dan have given top notch advice as always. For my two pence, Even though I'm a writer/director, I have produced shorts for other people and found the experience invaluable. It's a great way to understand the whole process of filmmaking and you get a ringside seat to the directing process too. I highly recommend that every director produce for someone else at least once.
As a director, Shorts help you to refine your skills, find your voice and more importantly find the right crew when the time comes for your feature. They can also help you get work. Unlike most of my peers, I haven't directed a music video and I haven't made corporates, so my options for paid directing work has been limited.
However my last short film Shadow Man, got me an interview for BBC Directors' Room 2016 and I am now going to join Eastenders as a director from early next year. So definitely make the short, and make some more until you know you can handle a feature and do it well. Good luck and merry christmas!
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Oh wow, joining Easties is a brilliant career move. Soaps are (from friends notes, anyway) hard work, but they are also the training ground for the next wave of talent. I've worked with ex-soap cast before - those guys are impressive! They work like troopers, do dodgy hours, learn lines at short notice, have no glamour, but are very professional. Congratulations, it's a great chance to hone your skills :)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
That's awesome Afia! So often we don't know where our careers are going to go. The film gods shine or they don't. The first film I edited was the first film I "saved" by directing new scenes and re-editing. I simply did it because the producer asked me to. I didn't know it was an actual job that people did at the time. The downside is, I could never climb out of that pigeon hole. I was someone that could fix a movie, and in the movie business, you don't turn down work, so I just kept fixing shit. Problem is, people like me don't get a screen credit and we sign these damned non-disclosure agreements. So you can't use that work to get better work and better films.
What I'm saying to you is this: use your time off from the soap to do your own things. Don't let the industry pigeon hole you (I assume this is a problem in the U.K. as well). Make damned sure the opportunity you've earned is a stepping stone, and not a stone around your neck.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Hi Afia,
Yeah they're always a good font of advice and knowledge. Thank you so much for the insight, really valuable. And that's really great news about East Enders and wonderful to hear, congratulations!!!
It's especially heartening to hear because that's a route I'm hoping for - I'd love to be able to make my living directing television drama. I've been making corporates and ads for many years and this is my first real foray out into what I should have done a long time ago.
I'd be really interested in hearing how you get on with the directing and especially how directing for TV differs from the short work.
Merry Christmas to you too!
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander
It's all about marketing and WHO IS YOUR AUDIENCE.
If your audience is "people who can give me a job on a soap" then a short can impress them - they will appreciate what they are seeing re production and directorial skills.
If your audience is "people with money who will finance my movies" then a feature that shows bang for buck AND that you can hustle some sales metrics on.
From what I've seen, the no track record people trying to get FEATURE MONEY on the back of non commercial shorts have a very hard time of it.
Based on what you've said above, I'd say that shorts are the way to go UNLESS you get a brilliant feature script that is natively almost zero budget. (Such scripts are almost as rare as unicorns. 90 mins is a LONG time. I've been trying to write one for years but a gun, castle or car chase always creeps in somewhere!).
Enjoy. But Producer/Director? Nightmare. Writer/Producer or Writer/Director yes, but genuinely Producer/Director, madness :-)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Fuck Marlom, me either! I try to write 2 characters around a tea cup, but 30 pages later I've added 27 more characters.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Jason Wilcox
@Dan Selakovich
I find this surprising. I have been making zero budget feature films with minimal casts (usually no more than 3 people) for the last 10 years. I don't find them difficult to write at all. When I tried to write scripts which included more than around 5 characters I found they tended to get less dramatic and more diffuse, in fact - and probably much more difficult to write well (speaking for myself, at any rate).
I uploaded some trailers to vimeo some months ago but so far don't have enough viewers to make it worth my while to upload the whole films (which have running times between 70 mins and 105 mins) - I am hoping to at least make some of the money I spent on them back if I charge around £2.99 at some point, though...(vimeo take 10% + a £150 p.a. hosting fee).
I long ago gave up trying to get funding for my work - generally I was told it was too "French"!
Trailer links here:
https://vimeo.com/user4229687
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Jason Wilcox SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
@Jason Wilcox That's really great. It's a different skill set, in the end. The only thing I have confidence in, as far as my life goes, is that I'm a pretty damned good editor, but I suck as a trailer cutter. Two completely different skill sets. Some people are natural comedy writers, but couldn't write a drama to save their lives. I don't find that surprising in the least.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Lol, madness indeed Marlom :)
Yeah I don't know how I'm gonna get feature money.
Audience? The latter, hoping I can also impress the former hehe.
So here are my aims:
Higher tier festivals - get me into the room and talking to people about other projects, meeting other film makers, but also just get the film seen.
It's a second short and if I can bag another BAFTA accredited or Oscar accredited festival garland I can then access the good quality talent labs. The intention is to shoot for the stars and hope I can get to the moon ;)
And by no means least get my career moving again and get directing TV drama or soaps to get practice and make a living whilst I dream of making my feature or a series.
Bloody hell, reading that back it sounds like I'm living in dreamland.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
And also credibility as a director - I want to make something that can punch me out from the billions of other short film makers in the world. That's a massive aim, to convince both myself and the rest of the world that I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land I think.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna
Hi Dan - post story boards for every shot? That's what Spielberg does right? And made everyone read them including the cleaners, like a comic book. Never could see the point of that but think I get it now. At least then everybody knows where they're supposed to be going right?
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
Hey Allan, I've never heard that about Spielberg, but I don't doubt it. He has a reputation for moving incredibly quickly, which isn't possible unless everyone knows what the hell is going on at any given moment. I know that Jean-Pierre Jeunet (MicMacs, City of Lost Children) does this, and if I'm not mistaken, seems I heard that the Coen bothers as well. Regardless, it's a really good idea.
Since I fix films, I never had the time to do storyboards. But everyone did get the shot list, at least. I had one AD fight me on that, but never understood his point, so I can't really argue the other side with any intelligence.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
My 2p - storyboard anything interesting and not the coverage. Storyboarding master/over-shoulders/cutaways should be redundant for any halfway-competent director and any crew who've ever made a film before.
Each film has a few money shots, storyboard them for sure. Action sequences, any important camera moves, absolutely. Anything to communicate clearly helps, but you oughtn't need to communicate a whole heap about basic filmmaking 101 stuff. You'll spend more time flipping through folders or finding the right bits of post-it-note wallspace than just getting the basic shots ;-)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
I get that, Paddy, but I think more to the point is letting people in on the process so that the crew feels more included. On a less esoteric note, if the crew sees that they have 35 setups for the day, everyone works a bit harder to finish the day on time.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah
Thanks Guys, I'll keep you posted about how I get on. Even from the interview process I can see that directing multi-cam Tv is very different from directing single cam short films.
The good thing about the BBC Directors room is that they give you time to train and shadow a more experienced director before they let you loose on your first episode.
Definitely Dan, I am going to keep writing and make some more of my own work. I think it's important that directors have some producing/script development experience, because during the interview process for Eastenders, we were required to give script notes on an episode which was being transmitted immediately after the interview. Once I saw the episode, i knew i was in with a chance. because almost all the script changes I recommended were in the episode.
That knowledge came from being a writer myself, working on other peoples scripts that I had produced and script reading for shit loads of companies.
For me storyboarding is a vital part of my directing prep, to get to know the story and clarify the relationships and dynamics of the story in a visual way.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
I believed Easties was shot single-camera? Or at least not 'true' multi-camera (live direction, usually studio live daytime TV, some live sitcoms, live big music events etc. Live stuff, anyway). Unless you saw otherwise, it may be a weight off your mind as live gallery direction is an entirely different skill!
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah
No Eastenders is shot multi-cam, 3 cameras for most scenes and 4 for large scenes like the pub, the square and the market. So when you shoot a scene, you shoot it all at once, all the way through without stopping. For some of the big scenes like in the pub, you can cut up the scene before hand and shoot it in smaller sections.
A director gets 41/2 weeks to prep 4 episodes, which is a block ie w week's worth of shows. So it is crucial to storyboard for yourself and then translate that onto floor plans which will form the basis of your camera plans. The production team then follows the director's camera plans.
There is a vision mixer on set who makes a rough cut as you shoot, then after the shoot, the director and editor finish the edit and solves any editing problems that have arisen.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - afia nkrumah SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Think I was thinking of Brookside, actually, so fair enough :).
So you get 3-4 ISOs plus a live mix (directed by the vision mixer? Or is it effectively an assembly edit?). Sounds like you'll have a lot of fun! The soap guys work hard, but you already know you'll have four of the top rated viewing figures in your week, a massive achievement. Enjoy every minute of it!
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Tony Franks
Chris, Have you read this opinion?
SHORT FILMS SUCK
http://www.webfilmschool.com/short-films-suck-huh-6-reasons-youll-love-5-6/
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Tony Franks SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Heh heh Dov is quite a character, and states his opinions strongly, but they are just opinions. He is in the training and aspiration business (and is very good at it - very entertaining and informative seminars), but he's not a successful director or producer, he's a guy with opinions selling courses.
I mostly agree with him, but have softened my opinions against shorts (as long as I don't have to watch them) as for most people, it's all they want or need to make. Making a short is a lot faster and more fun than making a feature (or it should be!). It's something you can complete alongside a day job, it's achievable. Features are hugely more work. If everyone goes straight for making a feature, that just means more abandoned work and more wasted resources.
I also suggest that whilst the article ascribes no value to working with a student crew, it is entirely written from the director's viewpoint. Assuming you're not paying proper rates for professional crew, you're giving trainee crew some experience to cut their teeth too. And working with a crew is incredibly intimidating if you've never done it before - you don't know who does what and why and how long it takes. A short (especially with paid, experienced department heads then student backfill) gives everyone a bit of a chance to get experience and make contacts, and those can lead interesting places. He's right that you'll be hard pushed to give tickets away, but the same goes with features.
A feature shot on a short's budget will almost exclusively be unwatchable. It won't even be shot on a short's budget, because the entire overhead for a feature is massively higher, which means less money on screen. At least that short can look luxurious and have every frame cuddled and coddled - and with the blessing of the gods it'll be short and people will clap. With a cheap feature I'll bet you'll find people who aren't obligated to stick it out for family reasons will leave the screening rather than face another 80 minutes worth.
And, let's face it, for most people film making should be an enjoyable creative process, rather than a relentless drive to try to become a Hollywood director, churning out generic crap because that's what the studios will back. How many actually good films were on at the Odeon last year? I'll bet you can count the ones that didn't disappoint on one hand. And that's the best of what's out there. You can up it a little by including art house cinemas, but not that much. I'll bet you don't have to take your socks off... So for most people making shorts to have creative fun is probably everything they actually want out of filmmaking, and that's absolutely fine. It's achievable. It's healthy.
Being driven by dogma to make a feature with all compromises that entails will put some people off, will certainly put almost all of the rest off once they see the scale of the job, lead to a lot of abandoned projects, stretch budgets even thinner, and ultimately a couple of halfway decent films may get made and be worth distributing. And the studio distributors are waiting to acquire completed films for pennies that they can brand and release having done none of the work and taking none if the risk. And I'll bet those films would have been made anyway.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich
I completely agree with Paddy. Dov is a fixture here. I think he was probably a PM back in the 70s, and what he has to say about low-budget feature production (the bits I've heard about from people that have taken his "course") are essentially accurate. And like Paddy, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. But I can't agree with him here. He's just trying to sell his lecture. There's nothing wrong with selling shovels to the gold miners, but that's what he's doing.
The main reason to make a short is to get your chops down. To learn. To develop a "voice". If your first movie is a feature without having worked in the film industry for a while, it's gonna suck, most likely. And the thing about a bad first feature is that it will not get you work or a 2nd feature. You can make a boatload of crappy shorts, and it won't harm your career in the slightest. But you will get better with each one.
In the end, you can't skip the learning curve, even if Dov is telling you you can.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
@Dan Selakovich no I agree Dan, and I probs should have held off on the rant, all advice is good advice, and I think in some respects the article is right - if you're a 21 year old film school grad with all the time in the world making a first film on an iphone. Making a feature makes sense. But if the object is career advancement and getting on to the establishment funding ladder (and maybe this in itself is the wrong choice) then it seems far, far riskier to put your eggs in one basket with a feature, if you can't guarantee you'll deliver something of real quality.
Dunno, I'm learning, sometimes I think the career path is by far the hardest bit about film making! :)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
I'd actually suggest anyone who does want to make low budget features and hasn't got a starting point actually spend a couple of days at a seminar like Dov's. He'll give a broad, if relatively shallow, grounding and is very entertaining. It'll cover 80% of the stuff you need to know to about 20% of the depth, and a lot of the rest you learn by doing, and you do with the confidence he inspires.
But he's taught a lot of seminars, and even if only by sheer weight of numbers over the decades, he's given seminars attended by people who've made many, many movies. Then again, I'd imagine 90%+ of the audience never make a feature, and 99%+ never make two or more. Would that fractional percentage have done so anyway? Who can tell?!
It's not wasted money, at least :)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Thanks Paddy and Tony, yeah there's quite an absence of nuance in that article eh? Not least because - and I'll work randomly through this - many very good pros will actually work with new directors if the project is good (I would as an experienced editor, my current prod designer is, my current cast is, my current AP is) and also there are shades of experience between grads and seasoned pros. Like the excellent camera assistants I worked with last time.
The money is also not the issue, no one makes a short to make money. Rather they do it to get credits, experience and network. I got a free paid up trip to San Jose last year on the back of the short, and it was absolutely wonderful to be talking to film makers in Cali and getting a more global perspective on the industry. Hugely motivating and informative for my career.
Awards? I didn't get one at Cinequest, but I did get one good accredited festival credit, which means I need just one more to qualify me for talent labs, funding streams and certain feature devt programmes. These are a kind of panacea because money on it's own is worthless. What I want as a director is so much more than just selling a low budget feature - I want access to networks, mentoring, collaborations, advice, career opportunities, the things that seem to be mainly accessible through the short film route.
If you're making a 9 min short with car chases, VFX, film stock, stunts and a plethora of locations then either you need more than a web training program or you already have enough money/contacts to forge a career without help. What Dov seems to be suggesting is that short film is just a cut-down version of feature when it's a completely different form with different storytelling rules.
Lastly, to say there's no longer a learning curve in film making because the tech is more accessible is quite frankly ridiculous. It's like saying that anyone can drive a car because most now have sat nav, it reduces film making down to camera work.
I think I've just answered my initial question. :)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Jane Geisler
I have to disagree with most of that article. I'm a professional editor and my friends are professional producers, directors, production designers, DPs, etc. - and we all work on each other's short films, often for very little or no pay. Perhaps the film scene in New Orleans is just too different from the UK (I haven't been over there in quite a while), but as indie filmmakers we get a lot of support from camera houses and grip and electric equipment companies and local university film departments and are able to get nice gear. And it IS about learning. It's just financially irresponsible to make a feature with a completely inexperienced director. Yes, short form is a different animal, but if you haven't learned how to express what you want (and already developed that voice and style) to the people around you, then you stand to waste a lot of time and money because you didn't invest in your own education. (By that I mean trying your hand at something small.)
Also, I know people outside of the film industry who LOVE short films and get excited about the local film festival specifically because it'll have 5-6 blocks of shorts and they don't get to see them that way elsewhere. I think short films will gain in popularity, actually, as attention spans get shorter and experimentation becomes more mainstream.
Lastly, I would never take that guy's course based on that article. He comes off not as experienced but closed-minded. Seriously, spell "Tribeca" correctly if you're going to be snide.
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Jane Geisler SHOW
9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle
Sorry - bit of a rant there ;)
Response from 9 years, 7 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW
9 years, 6 months ago - David Graham Scott
Hi Chris
I was recently at the big doc festival in Amsterdam called IDFA. I saw several great feature documentaries but one short doc especially stood out for me. It was called The Meadow. A very simple idea that gradually evolved into a monumental statement within 8 or 9 minutes.
Short films can definitely further your career and may not immediately lead to riches but can certainly gain significant recognition for you.
Regards
David
Response from 9 years, 6 months ago - David Graham Scott SHOW
9 years, 6 months ago - Chris Bogle
Thanks David and apologies for the tardy reply. Oh I don't expect riches - the opportunity to direct drama regularly would be reward enough for me. :)
Response from 9 years, 6 months ago - Chris Bogle SHOW