There have been some excellent posts regarding demo reels. I posted the following as a comment but, as a published author on reels, and an editor in the heart of Hollywood, these few tips may be helpful: A reel is created to convince agents, casting directors and producers that you are the best person for the part. A reel has no other function. Casting directors these days will tell you a minute is the maximum they are likely to watch. Your agents will tell you to post individual clips on Actors Access and other sites so that they can discuss your performance with casting while they are watching the clip that best represents the role you have been submitted for. Therefore it is counter-productive to put dissolves or other effects between clips other than "dips to black or white." This allows you to quickly and cheaply reshuffle your reel for a specific purpose, pull out a scene that is not relevant for this submission, essentially revise your reel ad-infinitum. There are actors, who are at the level of series regular or starring roles whose reels need to be longer since producers will want to see the scope of their abilities, but even they will be asked to submit individual clips more often than not. I have two young stars, that are in this category and I will post their 5 minute reels. Tips: (Almost) no-one should be on your reel but you, When in doubt throw it out. Casting wants to see your performance, they are not interested in story. Don't repeat a character or situation. If you have two tirade scenes, choose the best one. In fact don't repeat anything. Eliminate all extraneous footage, no coming through doors, running across fields, walking down long hallways with your back to the camera any thing that does not promote you as the star. If the star of the series boosts your performance with a comment or throws focus to you, this is okay. Use whatever makes you look good. Bad video quality reduces the effectiveness of your performance. Enhance, color correct, brighten if you need to. All work on your reel should be as current as possible. If you were famous for a scene shot 20 years ago and must use it. Restore the video technically. If you don't love your reel, you won't promote it as religiously as you should. I've never seen anything, reel, trailer or feature film, that didn't benefit from being shorter. But then, I am an editor.
1 person likes this
Doug Nelson Because it is part of an intentional exclusion of the voices of Americans. It is not about competence, right? It's about showing what has already been created. So... you know....
Expand commentDoug Nelson Because it is part of an intentional exclusion of the voices of Americans. It is not about competence, right? It's about showing what has already been created. So... you know.
I suppose it's just me because I just look for folk who can/will do the job. That's it. I don't care about race, gender, sexual preference or anything else. I never have & never will - I carry no sham...
Expand commentI suppose it's just me because I just look for folk who can/will do the job. That's it. I don't care about race, gender, sexual preference or anything else. I never have & never will - I carry no shame and no guilt. History is history - not all of it was good; but I think that if we erase it, we will be more likely to repeat it (good, bad or indifferent). Can we all just get back to makin' movies?
1 person likes this
Re-watching one of my favorite TV shows, 'The Good Wife', and one of the early episodes deals with "implicit bias". Sometimes it's not about acknowledging a bias that is absolutely present but rather...
Expand commentRe-watching one of my favorite TV shows, 'The Good Wife', and one of the early episodes deals with "implicit bias". Sometimes it's not about acknowledging a bias that is absolutely present but rather assuming that the bias is readily accessible, so making a well-rounded collection of films available is in an effort to offset a potential "implicit bias". That is to say, don't wait to smell smoke before creating a fire escape plan.
1 person likes this
I'm with Doug Nelson in one sense: I don't care who/what you are as long as you're competent and professional. On the other hand, the conscious exclusion of competent work based on ANYTHING (race, gen...
Expand commentI'm with Doug Nelson in one sense: I don't care who/what you are as long as you're competent and professional. On the other hand, the conscious exclusion of competent work based on ANYTHING (race, gender, etc., etc.) other than the competence of the work, should be redressed. And should be redressed within the framework of why the work was excluded in the first place (race, gender...), so that the context is not lost, that the history is remembered - and not repeated.
4 people like this
John Ellis and Doug Nelson You both make good points. I assert that if we "just make films" and ignore the power of the medium, we are lying to ourselves. Because we know what the early filmmakers lea...
Expand commentJohn Ellis and Doug Nelson You both make good points. I assert that if we "just make films" and ignore the power of the medium, we are lying to ourselves. Because we know what the early filmmakers learned and got excited about: that the moving picture (with or without sound) film is possibly the most powerful artistic medium ever created. As directors and producers, we are articulating symbol and image and attitude. We are promoting those things by definition, and we are revealing our own attitudes, no matter what we think we are saying on screen. It is important then for us as creators to be aware of the messages we are implying and well as stating outright.... that's a bit distant from the "inclusion in a catalog" subject, but the same thing applies. And I believe without qualification that catalogs and the symbols within them are created intentionally.