Film Production Archive

“What’s in The Box?!”

boxposter

Richard Kelly’s new film, The Box, is based on a short story by Richard Matheson. As a fan of their work, I’ve been wanting to see this for awhile now. I was in Borders the other day when I decided to sit down and read the source material. (Isn’t it great how you can just sit down and read something in a bookstore, without anyone coming up to you and asking, “Are you going to buy that?” But I digress.)

The story, named “Button, Button,” is only six pages long. (I should tell you that I’m going to give away the ending to Matheson’s story; I don’t know if it spoils the ending of Kelly’s adaptation or not.) It’s about a New York couple named Arthur and Norma Lewis. One day, they find a mysterious box on their doorstep. A mystery man named Mr. Steward arrives, and he makes them an offer: If they push the button on the box, he’ll pay them $50,000, but someone they don’t know will die. Arthur is disgusted, but Norma tries to convince him (”a chance to take that trip to Europe we’ve always talked about…”). On page 5, Norma presses the button, and Arthur dies in a terrible accident. It’s soon revealed that he had taken out a $25,000 life insurance policy, which doubles in the case of an accident. When Mr. Steward calls again, Norma is hysterical: “You said it would be someone I didn’t know!” To which he replies: “Mrs. Lewis, do you really think you knew your husband?”

Again, I have no idea if the movie will have the same ending. It probably won’t, because there’s only one page of the story left after Norma presses the button. I’m guessing the button gets pushed in the first 30 minutes or so.

All I know is that “Button, Button” leaves Kelly a lot of room to take the story in whatever direction he wants. I already know he’s changed some stuff. For instance, the couple in the film (played by Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) live in Virginia, not New York. Mr. Steward offers them $1 million instead of $50,000. And the facial scars that Frank Langella sports in the trailer aren’t mentioned in Matheson’s story.

Having read it, I can’t say I’m more excited to see The Box now than I was before, but it hasn’t diminished my expectations either. This will be Kelly’s first period piece since Donnie Darko. (Southland Tales was supposed to be set in the near-future but, ironically, ended up being set in the present day because its release was delayed for so long.) He has a few spotty credits to his name (Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut, for example, and the screenplay for Tony Scott’s Domino). But this is still one of the most exciting filmmaking voices of the new century. Southland Tales is wildly underrated; that and Joe Dante’s Homecoming are the two best movies ever made about the Bush years. And Donnie speaks to young people where they live in ways that few movies can. I think it’s a safe bet that The Box will be a gift when it opens on Nov. 6.

“Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!”

futurama_title

On Saturday I went to Animation Supercon, South Florida’s annual pow-wow of gamers, anime fans, cosplayers and comic-book guys. I fall into one or two of those categories, but mostly I was there to see the cast reunion of Futurama. Fry, Bender, Kif and Hermes were all there to help promote the show’s glorious return to the airwaves.

The highlight came when David X. Cohen, who created the show with Matt Groening, gave us an exclusive sneak peek at the new season. It was a little crude - just animatics and voice work, no color or CG - but still, we got to see brand new Futurama scenes almost a year in advance!

The three-minute clip picked up right where the ending of Into the Wild Green Yonder left off. After being sucked into a black hole, the Planet Express Ship ends up back in Earth’s orbit. Fry and the Professor are left relatively unscathed, but the other crew members aren’t so lucky. So the first episode is all about putting Bender, Leela, Hermes, Amy, Kif and Dr. Zoidberg back together again. There were some big laughs, and I came away with the impression that the new episodes will retain the two-jokes-per-second pace of the first four seasons, rather than the slower pace of the straight-to-DVD movies.

Cohen divulged other secrets. Of the 26 episodes that will begin airing on Comedy Central next year, 10 of them have already been written. In one of the new episodes, Leela and Zapp Brannigan get stranded on an Eden-like planet.  In another, Bender has an affair with Amy, which made me think of something Bender once said about humans dating robots: “Humans dating robots is sick. You people wonder why I’m still single? It’s ’cause all the fine robot sisters are dating humans!” There will also be a “What If Machine” episode, and the Hyper-Chicken (my favorite minor character on the show) will make a cameo appearance.

I’ll throw out a few more tidbits that should entice fans of the show: Finglonger, Space Pope, Roberto the Insane Robot.

So there you have it. A new season of Futurama is definitely on the way. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes!

Phil LaMarr, voice of Hermes Conrad. One of Phil's first screen roles was as Marvin, the kid who gets shot in the face in Pulp Fiction.

Phil LaMarr, voice of Hermes Conrad. One of Phil's first screen roles was as Marvin, the kid who gets shot in the face in Pulp Fiction.

John DiMaggio, voice of Bender Bending Rodriguez. John is a highly skilled beatboxer.

John DiMaggio, voice of Bender Bending Rodriguez. John is a highly skilled beatboxer.

Billy West, voice of Philip J. Fry. Billy does a great Glenn Beck impression.

Billy West, voice of Philip J. Fry. Billy does a great Glenn Beck impression.

Series co-creator David X. Cohen shares his take on Futurama's tumultuous existence.

Series co-creator David X. Cohen. David studied physics and computer science in college.

The partial cast of Futurama enjoy the fruit of their labor along with the fans.

That's Maurice LaMarche on the far left, the voice of Kif Kroker.

And the Oscar Might Have Gone To…

ratatouille-oscar-37735

In June, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced it would feature 10 Best Picture nominees in this year’s Oscar race. That’s double the number of nominees that have been selected in past years.

This is certainly going to take some getting used to. For one thing, you’re going to have Best Picture nominees that are completely shut out of the acting and technical categories. Much speculation has surrounded this decision, but the most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that the Academy wants to make room for blockbusters like The Dark Knight, which could help draw more viewers to its annual telecast. It could also leave room for more idiosyncratic fare, like documentaries and indie films. So it’s likely that some films that would have been shut out in past years will vie for the top prize next March - films like Watchmen, Up, Inglourious Basterds and District 9.

I thought it might be fun to go back and guess which films might have made the cut had this system been in place five years ago. I’ve selected some of the movies that people thought were “snubbed” at the time, and I’ve included some blockbusters that might have been recognized had there been more slots. (I’ve also listed the five films that were in fact nominated.) These lists are probably tainted by some wishful thinking on my part, but here goes:

2008
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost/Nixon
Gran Torino
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
Tropic Thunder
Wall-E
The Wrestler

2007
Atonement
Hairspray
Into the Wild
Knocked Up
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

2006
Babel
Borat
Children of Men
The Departed
Dreamgirls
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
Pan’s Labyrinth
The Queen
United 93

2005
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck.
A History of Violence
Hustle & Flow
March of the Penguins
Munich
Pride and Prejudice

2004
The Aviator
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Finding Neverland
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Incredibles
Million Dollar Baby
The Passion of the Christ
Ray
Sideways
Spider-Man 2

Don’t Go See ‘Halloween II’ in Theaters

michael_myers_h2

In a recent interview, shock-horror meister Rob Zombie and his favorite scream queen, Scout Taylor-Compton, discussed their latest sacrilegious sequel/remake, Halloween II:

Zombie: “There’s a much darker cut of the movie with Laurie, it’s almost the destruction of this teenage girl.”

Taylor-Compton: “There’s a director’s cut that’s more raw and real and disturbing and that’s how I like horror movies. There’s a lot more to it, especially with the characters. [It's still] the same movie but there’s a lot more emotion to it.”

Don’t go see this in theaters, folks. By reading this, I’m convinced the movie was hacked to pieces by the studio, which would explain the savage critical and public response it’s received thus far. Zombie released a great director’s cut of his first Halloween movie on DVD, and there’s no reason to believe this sequel won’t follow suit.

Unlike most horror fans, I was an admirer of the theatrical cut of Halloween when it came out in 2007. But the extended DVD cut was a vast improvement. The only change I didn’t like was a scene in the mental hospital. A nurse says something mean to Michael before he slashes her, whereas in the theatrical cut, she didn’t say anything. It was far scarier when she didn’t provoke him.

I’m guessing Zombie has a far richer version of Halloween II in the can. Might as well hold out for a few more months until we can get our hands on the DVD.

You can read the full interview with Zombie, Taylor-Compton and others here.

Filmmaking Software Workarounds

paperworkThere’s a paper-pusher side to making movies. Of course, there’s the script. Then there’s also the budget, script breakdown sheets, shot lists and shooting schedule. If the project is anything longer than just a couple of scenes and involves more people than just a friend or two, all of this stuff’s gotta be written up in order to get the movie shot without getting lost or compromising everything.

Not surprisingly, there’s a whole industry of software to help you make all these documents for your shoot. But since it’s such a specialized field, the quality of this software is usually pretty mediocre, while the price tag is outrageous! A company called Entertainment Partners makes programs called Movie Magic Budgeting and Movie Magic Scheduling which go for a whopping $500 each. But all they really consist of is clunky, user-hostile spreadsheet interfaces that output ancient, golden-era-Hollywood-style reports.

Some software developers have been getting on the ball. Final Draft, the industry standard screenplay word processor, has finally come out with an updated version and slashed the price by half in the process. That’s what I’m talking about.

But truth be told, the modern indie filmmaker can get by without spending a dime on specialized software. Plenty of freely available applications can be adapted for just about any type of film paperwork tasks. You can get free macros and templates for the office application of your choice, which add screenplay format to your word processor or budgeting structure to your spreadsheets. Here’s one for Word, after just a quick search.

And then there’s Google. Ah, Google, is there anything you can’t do?

I’ve found that the Tasks and Calendar apps are an ideal combination for making shot lists and shooting schedules. Calendar allows you to create multiple custom-named and color-coded calendars which can all be displayed in any combination across various time views. What I have done is create a calendar for

  • Logistics - where I put all the non-filming work, like arriving at location, setting up lights, lunch, etc.
  • Production - which contains the actual shots

I also include a Weather calendar for the area which displays the average expected weather for the day. I then use the simple Tasks app, available inside both Gmail and Calendar, to throw down some actual shots I want to do after lining the script. I use Tasks to brainstorm - add, delete and rearrange the order of the coverage until I finally arrive at a list I’m comfortable with.

Then I use this list to enter actual events in the calendar. In Day view, I drag out rough estimates of how long setups will take and add descriptions. Once they are all in, I go into each event and fine-tune start and end times to make a more precise schedule. After that, I add in the logistics stuff and end up with a very clear picture of the shooting day. Because the calendars are color-coded it’s easy to see how much there is to shoot or whether there are a lot of company moves. Google even lets you print out a neat version of any view. I print out a single day view, ending up with a sheet like this:

shooting-schedule

I stick that in my notebook with the script and I’m ready to go mess it all up on the set. It’s an extremely convenient tool. In addition, I use Tasks in post-production, sometimes to outline everything that needs to be done on the project, other times to list the visual effects shots left to do. It’s damn satisfying crossing off items on that list because you know that once you’ve crossed off the last one… your movie’s done!

What everyday software do you adapt and use to help in your moviemaking efforts?

Best Movies EVER

Feeling all list-y today. Two things I learned while compiling this beast: 1994 and 1999 were both banner years for movies, and P.T. Anderson is the greatest film director of the last two decades. I didn’t pick any silent films, though Haxan, Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari almost made the cut; I like those movies but I can’t say I watch them over and over. I tried to pick at least one film by each of my favorite directors, but I couldn’t find room for Terry Gilliam, Werner Herzog and Jan Svankmajer; again, easier to admire than to love.

Listed in order of preference (along with the director’s name and the year the movie came out), here are my…

100 Favorite Movies

1. Chungking Express (Wong Kar-Wai, 1994)
2. Dazed and Confused (Richard Linklater, 1993)
3. Harold and Maude (Hal Ashby, 1971)
4. Band of Outsiders (Jean-Luc Godard, 1964)
5. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
6. The Godfather/The Godfather: Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972/1974)
7. Fanny and Alexander (Ingmar Bergman, 1982)
8. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
9. The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)
10. Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997)
11. Songs from the Second Floor (Roy Andersson, 2000)
12. Akira (Katsuhiro Otomo, 1988)
13. Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis, 1985)
14. The Ice Storm (Ang Lee, 1997)
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey/Solaris (Stanley Kubrick, 1968/Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)
16. Pump Up the Volume (Allan Moyle, 1990)
17. Bottle Rocket (Wes Anderson, 1996)
18. Raising Arizona (Coen Brothers, 1987)
19. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)
20. Paths of Glory (Kubrick, 1957)
21. Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (Tim Burton, 1985)
22. True Romance (Tony Scott, 1993)
23. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Zemeckis, 1988)
24. Murmur of the Heart/Au revoir les enfants (Louis Malle, 1971/1987)
25. Heavenly Creatures (Peter Jackson, 1994)
26. Lorenzo’s Oil (George Miller, 1992)
27. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
28. Carrie (Brian De Palma, 1976)
29. Titus (Julie Taymor, 1999)
30. Badlands (Malick, 1973)
31. The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, 1994)
32. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (Sam Raimi, 1987)
33. Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975)
34. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
35. River’s Edge/Over the Edge (Tim Hunter, 1986/Jonathan Kaplan, 1979)
36. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Kubrick, 1964)
37. Magnolia (P.T. Anderson, 1999)
38. Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003)
39. A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
40. Miller’s Crossing (Coen Brothers, 1990)
41. Blue Velvet (Lynch, 1986)
42. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman, 1975)
43. Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)
44. Almost Famous (Cameron Crowe, 2000)
45. Welcome to the Dollhouse (Todd Solondz, 1995)
46. The 400 Blows (Francois Truffaut, 1959)
47. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
48. They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (Sydney Pollack, 1969)
49. Deliverance (John Boorman, 1972)
50. Marathon Man (John Schlesinger, 1976)
51. Angels in America (Mike Nichols, 2003)
52. Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)
53. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)
54. Go (Doug Liman, 1999)
55. Election (Alexander Payne, 1999)
56. Fight Club (David Fincher, 1999)
57. Mysterious Skin (Gregg Araki, 2004)
58. The Last Waltz/Woodstock (Scorsese, 1978/Michael Wadleigh, 1970)
59. The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
60. Stop Making Sense (Jonathan Demme, 1984)
61. After Hours (Scorsese, 1985)
62. Amarcord (Federico Fellini, 1973)
63. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
64. Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
65. The Iron Giant (Brad Bird, 1999)
66. Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994)
67. Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturges, 1941)
68. Waking Life (Linklater, 2001)
69. Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)
70. Jacob’s Ladder (Adrian Lyne, 1990)
71. There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson, 2007)
72. Safe (Todd Haynes, 1995)
73. South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (Trey Parker, 1999)
74. Together (Lukas Moodysson, 2000)
75. Ran (Kurosawa, 1985)
76. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson, 2002)
77. Flirting (John Duigan, 1991)
78. Funny Ha Ha (Andrew Bujalski, 2002)
79. All the Real Girls (David Gordon Green, 2003)
80. Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)
81. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)
82. Dance Party, USA (Aaron Katz, 2006)
83. Wet Hot American Summer (David Wain, 2001)
84. Slacker (Linklater, 1991)
85. Y tu mama tambien (Alfonso Cuaron, 2001)
86. Lolita (Kubrick, 1962)
87. The Devil’s Backbone (Guillermo del Toro, 2001)
88. The Rules of Attraction (Roger Avary, 2002)
89. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (Lasse Hallstrom, 1993)
90. Reality Bites (Ben Stiller, 1994)
91. Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996)
92. The Man in the Moon (Robert Mulligan, 1991)
93. Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950)
94. Hunger (Steve McQueen, 2008)
95. Boys Don’t Cry (Kimberly Peirce, 1999)
96. Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino, 1992)
97. King of the Hill (Steven Soderbergh, 1993)
98. The Lion King (Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, 1994)
99. Detroit Rock City (Adam Rifkin, 1999)
100. eXistenZ (David Cronenberg, 1999)

Coppola: The Master Returns with ‘Tetro’

tetroposter

Here’s the sad thing about Hollywood: Just because you’re a genius doesn’t mean you get work. Even if you’ve made a masterpiece, you still have to prove that your next project will find an audience, otherwise investors will balk. Two exceptions I can think of: Woody Allen, who’s too prolific, and Stanley Kubrick, who died too young and wasn’t nearly prolific enough. For everyone else, it’s a struggle.

This is especially true of Francis Ford Coppola. He’s only one of the greatest directors of the last 40 years, maker of American classics like The Conversation, The Godfather I and II, Apocalypse Now and The Outsiders. Nevertheless, he’s spent much of the last decade trying to get his dream project off the ground, going to pitch meetings with hat in hand and coming away empty. A science-fiction magnum opus called Megalopolis, this film looked to be the final statement on globalization. Tragically, Coppola was forced to abandon the project, and it’ll probably go down as one of the great unmade films, like Kubrick’s Napoleon.

In recent years, Coppola has returned to smaller, more personal projects, self-financed by his winemaking fortune. The first was 2007’s Youth Without Youth. It was mostly dismissed by critics; personally, I thought it was visually impressive but a narrative muddle. Still, some European critics liked it, and certain images (particularly a beautiful shot of Tim Roth being struck by lightning) have stayed with me. I’m eager to see it again.

Now comes the release of Tetro, the second film in this bold new phase of Coppola’s career. It’s about a family of artists living in Argentina. Reviews so far have been mixed, but some critics who I really respect, like Nathan Lee of Film Comment and Aaron Hillis of The Village Voice, have said it’s the best thing he’s done in decades. I’m starting to get really excited about it.

It’s great to see Coppola, at 70, still pursing his artistic vision. Frankly, I’d written this director off after Jack. But he seems to have bounced back, and the cinema is a more exciting place because of it.

Tetro will start a limited theatrical engagement on June 11.

Drugs, Youth and a ‘Wet Foot Duck’

wet_foot

This is the first in a trilogy of films written and directed by Jesse Barack and co-written by Daniel Forberg. Barack is 21, and is already an award-winning filmmaker, having received a festival prize for The Long Road to Gary, a mockumentary he directed at 17. In recent years, the democratization of production and distribution brought about by the digital age has produced a new generation of talented and prolific young filmmakers. This is just as well; look at Fassbinder, whose death at 37 robbed us of who knows how many masterpieces. Young people should get started in film as soon as they can.

Barack has compared Wet Foot Duck to a mix between Paul Thomas Anderson’s porn-industry epic Boogie Nights and a Bret Easton Ellis novel. It’s about Harvey, a college-age guy who starts doing coke with his girlfriend and spirals downward from there. Like The Long Road to Gary, the film has a meta/experimental style; there’s no dialogue for the first 7 minutes. Instead, a sardonic narrator comments on the action, as Harvey and his friends get in way over their heads and end up the targets of violent drug dealers.

The plot isn’t much, but Barack makes up for this with a confident shooting style and a multitude of nicely chosen New York locations. The narration is hilarious (”his imagination moved in wild strokes like a fugitive lab monkey”), and the actors are photogenic and appear to be having fun.

Barack has designed the trilogy (Part Two is called Fritz, Francis and Frederick) as an anti-drug cautionary tale for teenagers. Whether it’s successful in this respect isn’t for me to judge. What I can say is that this director is speaking to his target audience on their level. The behavior of the characters, especially in a very funny bit involving text messages, seems authentic.

Everyone wants to appeal to the coveted teen demographic. Young filmmakers have the added advantage of actually knowing the people they’re trying to reach.

I Want My Avatar Now

james-cameron-avatar-poster

From the moment I began understanding what makes a good movie good, I began appreciating James Cameron films. His films are full of scenes that consistently stay lodged in my subconscious. Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Abyss, Aliens, True Lies & Titanic are all masterpieces in their own right. His films about exploring the depths of the sea are always amazing to watch. His commercial success has allowed him the privilege of not having to bow to any studio. He makes what he wants when he wants, and that is a rarity in today’s commercial-driven film world.

As most of the world knows, Cameron has been working on a super secret 3D film called Avatar for more then 10 years. Cameron promises the film will be groundbreaking and unlike anything any of us have ever experienced in a movie theater. Sounds like a tall order but he has delivered on similar promises before and I believe he has what it takes to do it again. For Avatar, Cameron developed a new camera system called Fusion Digital 3-D, used for shooting the live action elements. He also developed a new system for motion capture in which the CGI elements and the human elements can interact with each other in real time, thus enabling him to direct and modify the action and actors better than anyone has in a motion capture movie before. There is a reason that the acting in the new Star Wars trilogy seems so stiff and lifeless; Cameron does not want to make that mistake. It’s good to know that an action director thinks acting is important - so many don’t.

Every time I walk into a movie theater, I am secretly hoping that someone has attached an Avatar teaser to whatever I’m watching. The film is officially coming out on December 18 of this year, so a trailer is bound to come out this summer at some point. In Avatar, will we witness the future of filmmaking? No one can say for sure. All I know is it’s time to start getting excited about a new James Cameron film.

avatar

avatar

The Steadicam: You're Doing It Wrong

I listen to lots of director commentaries on DVDs. Most of the time they are interesting and insightful. Sometimes they are revealing and thought-provoking. I’ve heard several great, prominent film directors express their lack of love for the Steadicam. For example, in the commentary on American Beauty, Sam Mendes says something like, “Generally I don’t like using Steadicam because it makes me feel seasick. I don’t like that ‘Steadicam wobble’. But I ended up using it in this shot.”

I’m surprised at this attitude toward any production tool, let alone such a powerful and versatile one. Properly set up and used, the Steadicam (or similar devices from other brands) delivers perfectly smooth and steady shots not possible with any other camera support system. So where does this anti-Steadicam sentiment come from? My theory is that these directors are drawing on their own early experiences with stabilization rigs on low budget movies, where inexperienced operators used them improperly and delivered poor results.

These days, lite versions of camera stabilization rigs are becoming more readily available to indie filmmakers of all ranks. Unfortunately, no one seems to have a clear understanding of how these rigs need to be set up. Sure, you look cool with your Glidecam V-8 (and a palmcorder mounted on it) in your Facebook “Production Pics” album, but like the message boards say…

You're Doing it Wrong

So let’s take a look at some common mistakes with Steadicam setups. I’m going to use a generic rig as an example. And even though I’m saying “Steadicam”, I’m referring to any rig of this kind.

Steadicam

1. Bottom-heavy sled

Newbies always make the bottom of the sled too heavy, causing the rig to wobble during lateral movements and the wrist to strain when tilting the camera. This is easy to get wrong because there is a common misconception that the weight on top and bottom must be equal. WRONG. This would only be true if the collar (the pivot point) was midway through the shaft. But the collar is closer to the top (we want it to be as close to the camera lens as possible, so tilting looks natural), and the further up the collar is set, the heavier the top of the rig has to be to stay balanced.  There’s a simple mathematical formula behind this, but I’m too lazy to figure out what it is.

Just make that camera as heavy as needed and strip the bottom plate of anything unnecessary. The goal is to have the top and bottom of the sled balanced perfectly, so that when you tilt the shaft on its pivot point, the whole rig rotates effortlessly, like a gyroscope, with only friction bringing it to a stop. If you can’t make the whole rig tip over horizontally using nothing but the push of your finger, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

TEST: Wearing the rig, shift the sled side-to-side rapidly. If the shaft remains horizontal, and doesn’t wobble, then all is good.

2. Uneven distribution of weight on the bottom plate

This is a subtle defect, but it can have a noticeable effect on the overall stability of the rig. When you pan the camera on the sled, it is smoothed out by the resistance of the weight on the bottom plate which is also being panned. But if the weight on the bottom plate is out of whack - for example, the monitor out in front is much heavier than the battery or ballast on the rear, the resistance will be uneven and this can cause the shaft to tip out of vertical position. It can also cause the sled to pan when you don’t want it to, just from lateral movement. The distribution of weight on the bottom plate should be even, or be a “mirror image” of the weight distribution of the camera on the top plate.

TEST: Same as before, wearing the rig, move the sled side to side. If it doesn’t start to pan randomly on its own and force the shaft to wobble, then all is good.

3. Overly high spring tension

I think this happens because most indie filmmakers who get their hands on a stabilization rig mount it with camera gear that is too light. The springs in the arm end up being too tense and “overreact” to movements, adding up/down bounce instead of eliminating it. The tension of the springs must be just right. Luckily, pretty much every kind of spring arm comes adjustable. But if the loosest setting on the spring is still too tense, then you may have to add extra weight to the sled.

TEST: Wearing the rig, let the sled go. The spring arm should be perfectly horizontal. (If there are two spring arm sections then the whole arm should be lowered midway through its range of vertical movement.) Now run in place and have someone else who is standing still tell you whether the slate is staying in place and not bouncing.

4. Ass-backwards-sideways-bent-over walking

The Steadicam won’t work if your back is not perpendicular to the ground. Remember this: Stand up straight. Also, the Steadicam is designed in an ingenious way that allows you to place the camera anywhere in a 180-degree range in front of your body and point it in any direction. Position it in such a way that you can walk straight in the direction you need to go. Don’t sidestep, don’t walk backwards. There is no need to!

The only reason you might be doing it is because you’ve caught glimpses of veteran steadicam shooters in concerts and on sets walking in a weird way. But they’re doing it as part of a more complicated move, where direction and point of interest changes several times. Get the basics down and then you will know when non-straightforward walking is required.

TEST: Are you walking weird? Don’t.

Good luck!

  • Translator
  • Recent Comments