I personally believe the film turns out better when shot in one short schedule, plus it doesn't stress the actors.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Sometimes I have a great day of filming and sometimes the theater strikes me better. It just depends.
I don't believe moviegoers don't have patience. Screenwriters are told a scene can't be longer than three minutes, that you have to cut to the chase. Not true!
It's interesting going between small parts and then bigger roles where you carry the film. If the writing is good, and if the people involved have integrity, then you'll do it, even if it's only five minutes on screen.
My schedule is completely different doing a play than it is doing a movie, and I actually think it's a much harder schedule because you've got to do it eight times a week and you've got to do it good eight times a week and with different kinds of audiences who are cold or drunk or tired, whatever it is.
I've learned that I really want to shoot short films on a short schedule. There can be very good films that run 110 minutes, but 90 minutes is beautiful.
There's just such a premium on hurrying, and the camera is the be all and end all, and the actors had better hurry up and get it right and get it done.
Inherently, making a movie is tough because there's so much anticipation when it happens - even if everything goes well.
It takes a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of focus and dedication to do a film, and it's just not worth it if you're going to be miserable for even a day.
The biggest difference for me is momentum. On a smaller film you get to shoot sometimes four or five scenes a day and you've got to do the tight schedule. I think I really feel the luxuries of a big budget film.
An actor really suffers when the director isn't prepared because you start running out of time for the shoot and then have to do it fast.