This is yet another instance (in a seemingly infinite catalogue) of evidence of [1] the continuing devaluing and lack of professional concern for actor collaborators (and to be clear, I am a director / producer / series creator) — and disproportionately female actors, and [2] situations where actor comfort, safety, and security could be almost fully addressed if those involved on the side of management were capable of simple, respectful, human / adult conversation.

Lastly, I have yet to encounter any story moment that could / should only be choreographed and shot in one way in order to achieve impact for an audience. Any time I have been presented with an argument to the contrary, it confirms for me that either the story or the director — or both — are lacking.

Big fan of the BM URSA 12K, for all the reasons listed and the bit depth, sample rate, color rendition and more. Would not have guess it would come in at No. 1 as it takes a lot of guff (which seems unnecessary in my mind — no camera is ideal or perfect). Love shooting it... and posting it even more.

I am sorry (and I know the sacrilegious ground on which I tread), but no. No, no, no. Quentin Tarantino, for all his commercial success and occasional flashes of brilliance and auteurism (confined mostly to his earliest films), has no standing being mentioned in the same discussion as John Ford. Or Kurosawa for that matter. (I am willing to call Bogdanovich-adjacent references a draw.) Mr. Tarantino's comments on the black and white photography of early-Ford is but one, albeit glaring, example as to why.

One key difference that is the irreparable fork in the road for me is that John Ford never saw himself or his work as part of some sacred, Mount Olympus-set pantheon of filmic art, and as such, his work product routinely worked to glorify the characters and story therein, rather than the auteur. That is the proper place for an auteur. Mr. Tarantio's films, however, consistently have as a purpose, typically front and center, the presentation of the self-anointed majesty of Mr. Tarantino's skills. (I have had the opportunity to be in a room where Mr. Tarantino was talking film and his own work, and little was said that could be seen as refutation of my assertions here).

Mr. Ford (and Mr. Kurosawa) felt that the work — their films — were the connective tissue between audience and artist. Mr. Tarantino feels that the artist — the auteur — is the connection between audience and the work. I will favor the former, each and every time, over the latter.

Over-simplified, devoid of nuance rubbish.

No, no, no. Dear God, no. Please, do not get a whole new group / generation of filmmakers locked in to the wide-medium-tight progression. When they read / watch articles like this, they are too apt to take it as law, and we all end up watching the same boring coverage, scene after scene, film after film.

One does not need to be wide to inform as to the geographical location information needed by the audience. If I frame a close up on a plate of half- or mostly-eaten food (let’s say dim sum, for the sake of example) sitting on a Formica table with a garish neon sign in soft focus, hanging in or above the window in the background, the audience will know we’re in a Chinese restaurant, after a meal. We do not need the go-to establishing shot of the restaurant’s exterior (unless required story elements exist in the facade). Settings can be established in a variety of ways. To tell filmmakers that there is only one way — the wide, establishing shot way — to convey setting information is artificially limiting.

In the simplistic example I started above, I could cut from the CU on the plate out to a medium shot of two men in business suits, sitting in the booth with the dishes of their finished meal laid out before them. With that new framing, I accomplish the “who,” but I could also do it with another CU on some identifying gang tattoo or a briefcase chained to a wrist or whatever. Anyway, to continue the point, I could then cut to a long shot to include the restaurant door where three assassins charge in and kill one or both of the men in the booth, and that shot will have conveyed the what.

Does information need to be conveyed in a clear, systematic method? Yes, without question. But if you give nascent filmmakers formulaic recipes, we all end up having to sit through formulaic films. The focus should be on tying shots to the delivery of story elements in a proper sequence that ensures audience comprehension and enjoyment. I designed a film for a 2018 shoot where the progression of information dissemination via composition and framing is specific to different characters within the story — protagonist scenes progress visually one way; antagonist-dominant scenes another.

Shots are building blocks or components of an equation. When one fully understands the story needing to be told, one appreciates and utilizeds that while 1 + 2 + 4 = 7, so does 4 + 2 + 1, as well as all the other mathematic iterations.

Let’s encourage filmmakers to know their stories to the very core and work to find the most interesting and compelling ways to tell them. The multiplexes already have enough “by the book” filmmaking numbing us into staying home.

I am, generally speaking, not a fan of short films. Story components of plot, action, character development and arc and other ingredients typically need a certain amount of real estate to exist, play and properly resolve -- it is tough to build a mansion on a 1,000 square-foot lot, if you will.

That being said, I would be more of a fan if more of them delivered to the extent that Rod's do here (this is my first exposure to Rod's work). Every short film (or features, for that matter) should be this damn good.

I will be looking for HERE ALONE.