all 3 comments

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Never scrimp on sound.

And whatever that filmstock that was used between '65 and '75 really sucked. Use real film or go for video.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. It's 1/3 the experience with visuals and concepts (story, characters, themes, etc).

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I see so many expensive films now where it will suddenly jump out that it looks like cheap tv for one scene and I'm not really always sure what it is. I think having everything in focus and everything well lit is part of it.

Certainly try to knock the depth of focus back a notch and think about making lighting more natural and/or more dramatic. Your job as a director is partly to direct the viewer, not just the cast and crew. You have to direct them where they should be looking on that big wide screen not try to show off all your lovely actors and beautiful sets all the time. You can do this with focus, you can do this with lighting but you can also do it by making the actor who they should focus on move more than everyone else in the scene and tricks like that.

If you watch expensive adverts they actually get it right a lot more often than films because they are masters of directing the viewer's attention rather than just trying to make something look good. Kubrick made The Shining after studying advertising techniques. He didn't have to rely on lighting or focus because he could use all the other tricks they use to direct attention, travelling with the characters, colour, movement, montage, etc.