Hey All You Film Directors, and Director Wannabees:
Fix your stupid technical glitches!1. The volume yo-yo
We watch a lot of films on DVD, and wow, I wouldn't want to be subjected to the torture of watching them in the theater for one big reason: idiotic sound track work. Get a clue. We're constantly cranking up the volume and re-running parts of scenes because we can't hear the damn dialog — the sound is too soft. Then, in the car-crashing bar-busting gun-fight shoot 'em up scenes, we have to crank the volume waaaay back down so we're not blasted away. Just even the sound track out a little, will ya? Set the crash scenes so they might be "a trifle loud", and then make sure the dialog can be heard without cranking up the volume full blast. If some dialog is too soft to hear on moderate volume while crunching popcorn, it's too soft. If the crash scene is shaking the windows at the same volume setting, it's too loud. If I set the volume to a moderate level initially, I should never ever have to touch it again for the entire film. You don't need 200 decibels of dynamic range in your film, even if it's technically possible. Try 30. (Oh, and this applies to you conductors of classical music as well. If I have to crank up to hear the "pianissimo-piano" then down again for the "ffff", you've screwed up.)
2. Mumbling actors
Speaking of having to mess with the volume control, and re-winding to catch dialog... The number one cause of having to rewind a scene is mumbling actors. Get a clue, folks: the actors and the director and the crew all know the script. The first-time audience doesn't — but they hope to be able to hear it all. If the dialog is important, then make the actors enunciate clearly — don't mumble it off — or replace your mumblers with actors who can actually speak. In a theater, you can't rewind, so if you have mumbling actors, the audience misses important bits of the plot and people end up whispering to their partners: "Huh? Did you get that? What did they say?" and then missing the next lines of dialog. At home, it quickly turns into a session of "I don't know what the hell is going on, honey, can you rewind it again?" Actors: if I have to rewind once, I'll forgive you, unless I paid $15 or whatever to see you in a theater. But if I have to rewind two or more times to understand a bit of dialog, you're a bad actor or your director screwed up. (Oh and before you think I'm a total curmudgeon: I'm not talking about accents — I'll forgive you if you're from Glasgow, Edinburgh, or points north, and I have been known to re-wind repeatedly on Scottish ladies just to hear them again, even though I understood them perfectly well the first time...because there is almost nothing sexier a woman can wear than a charming Scottish accent.)
3. Jerky camera work
The jerky amateurish camera work isn't amusing. If I want to get seasick, I'll take a cruise. This jerky camera movement was a fad for a while, and some film crews are still doing it — I guess they're too dumb to figure out that this kind of fad doesn't last, and will make your film laughable in 20 years. Take it from me: jerky camera technique sucks. Go watch a film like Next Stop Wonderland. Charming film, and it would have been oh so much better without the sucky amateur camera work. There's a Woody Allen film or two that I have the same complaint about — I can't remember the titles even though I'm an Allen fan, so they must have been sucky, eh? Get rid of your bozo camera crew if they can't keep the camera steady. This fad won't stand the test of time. We watched The Constant Gardener, and it has just about as much jerky camera work as we could stand. OK, in moderation once in a while you might get away with it when you're trying to look "documentary", but don't overdo it, please. Get a tripod. Or invest in a steadicam, or build one yourself, and hire a guy who knows how to use it.
4. Anachronistic or sucky music
Few things spoil a film as much as music that (a) sucks, or (b) doesn't go with the period or genre, or (c) both of the above. The worst example sound track I can think of is in the film Ladyhawke. It would be a rather nice film if it didn't have such a stupid anachronistic musical score (oh, and all those continuity errors). What was the composer thinking? He wasn't thinking clearly, obviously. The film could do with a musical score that reflects the period — not the stupid thumping rock-beat orchestral stuff that was used. This film actually would be worth re-scoring by a composer who has a clue about matching the music to the film. Oh, and just because you use "classical" music doesn't mean it is always in-period. Don't, for example, use Tchaikovsky if your setting is Renaissance Italy, or Carl Orff if your setting is medieval England: even if Carmina Burana is a cool piece, King Arthur's era didn't have gigantic 20th century orchestras.