When you ask about improving your "abilities in film" what do you
mean?

As you point out, there are many aspects of filmmaking. Do you
need to daily improve your abilities as a costume designer? Do you
need to daily improve your abilities as an electrician? Do you
feel you need to work on your make-up abilities? How about your
abilities as a scripty? A dolly grip? All very important aspects
of filmmaking.

Is writing an ability you need to improve?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LIB
This roughly works out to 8 hours a day for four years.

---

Or 4 hours a day for 8 years. Or 2 hours a day for 4 years then
the usual 12-14 hours a day for 3 years.

I wonder how many famous directors would say they have achieved
"expert mastery" of filmmaking. How many of them - say those
working 60 hours a week for 10 years (appx. 24,000 hours) - would
say they are experts? That they have completely mastered their
craft and have very little left to learn. Or nothing at all.

I'm not a big believer in what that Mr. Levitin's study says about
achieving an expert mastery in anything . I believe that there is
no cut off number. That people can be experts in their field
rather quickly. And that many never become masters at all.

Do you believe you cannot earn a living as a filmmaker until you
have reached this 10,000 hour of practice mark? Did this study
include artists? I wonder how the study would have turned out when
including people like Mozart.

Anyway...

Welcome to filmmaking.net, LIB. I'm sure you can find things to do
every day to improve you abilities in film. You could write every
day, you could design a costume a week, you could apply make-up to
your friends. Then you could volunteer as a dolly grip on a
student film a couple of times a year and as a scripty another
couple of times - a one week shoot would give you 60/70 hours
towards your 10,000.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

I hopefully want to be involved with cinematography, sorry didn't specify before. I don't believe whole heartedly in the 10,000 theory but it is an interesting and obviously beneficial way of looking at practicing. But short of reading filmmaking books and attending seminars and courses I couldn't think of daily activities that could help me improve. I'd say the theory merely applies to technical ability and not creativity.
Thanks for your feedback, and welcoming me to the forum.

I agree that someone who has spent 10,000 hours shooting will be
more technically proficient than someone with 100 hours of
shooting. I suspect someone who has spent 100,000 hours shooting
will be more technically proficient than someone with 10,000 hours
of shooting. I'm not an educated person - I dropped out of school
at age 17 - but I don't need to read any studies to figure that
one out.

I believe you can learn all the time. I don't think you need
10,000 hours before you can be hired. Sure, you can't really shoot
film or video 8 hours a day, every day for three and half years to
reach that 10,000 hours, but you can gain experience in many ways.
You can shoot photos to learn about exposure, DOF, focus,
composition, framing, shutter speed and the like. You read about
film stocks - what they do, how they react to light. You can shoot
video to learn about exposure, DOF, focus, composition, framing,
shutter speed and the like. You can volunteer with local movie
makers with comparable experience and make shorts and music videos.

It's stating the obvious, but if you shoot one short or music
video a month you will have more practical practice in 12 months
than if you shoot 3 in the next year. And in my opinion, you will
gain more experience and technical ability that way then if you
shot stills and video alone 8 hours a day for that year.

You could also volunteer to be a camera assistant on student films
and any other local movies, short films or music videos being
made. Even one or two of those a year will help you improve.

Shoot everything you can. Become one with your camera.

WATCH MOVIES WITH THE SOUND OFF, Focus on visuals

The best way for me to learn was to try to mimmic shots I liked in professional movies. Find three very different scenes you would like to mimmic, and try to do it with your equipment. It may be difficult, but it will get you thinking visually. It will make you a better cinematographer too. When a director ask's for a curtain look you may already know what to do.

Myfilm"Shadow of Crime"
Trailer:
http://www.vimeo.com/4103913
Where to buy:Shadow of crime
https://www.createspace.com/288191

I really wonder if this study on virtuosos can really apply to more abstract arts and trades like writing.

Musical virtuosity is linked to physical ability. Linguistic fluency is as well. Same thing with sports. What do all of those have in common?

Repetitive practice. You need to drill, ingrain the best techniques into the fabric of your being so it becomes second nature. Even with jazz musicians, who practice improvising whether they know or it or not, become better improvisers through improving their "ear" for harmonic relationships, and developing the technical abilities necessary to express the melodic ideas they have in their mind, or on the spot. Even in that extremely abstract art, the technical is the basis for that.

You can't do that so much with a profession like directing, because not only is it significantly less physical, but it's also much more collaborative. Look how many amazing directors start making films with virtually no film-related experience.

It blows my mind to think that Citizen Kane was Welle's first film. He was obviously a prodigious performer, but he'd never worked in the medium before. Insane.

That being said, I think that the real deciding factor in how great you can become as a director, writer, or auteur filmmaker, is vision. If you have that inspiration driving you, things will fall into place. Eventually, and if you're lucky. 😉

But, to almost refute my whole post here, I believe the whole point of the 10,000 hours thing is not just the time spent on it. But that the time spent will allow for the discovery and development necessary for a "master" to emerge. I think of... alright, camera work. I've always had a good eye, but I never thought much about how I was filming when I did documentary style work. But I came to realize that sometimes, when I was tracking a subject, there was just something slightly off about it. One day something just clicked for me: don't try to follow the subject, just make sure to reframe and keep the distance from the subject to the edge of the frame the same and you follow the subject much much better than if you were trying to directly. Instantly, what would have been just interesting footage ended up being great. Did it change my entire perspective on camera work? No. Did it affect every aspect of my cinematography? No. But, if I kept practising and being self-observant for a good deal of time then I'm sure that eventually every aspect of my production would be touched by these sorts of realizations or developments.

----------
http://vimeo.com/corax

New poster here. I think the 10,000 hours theory is incredibly interesting and probably holds some validity just because if you spend that much time doing something you are bound to develop some proficiency with it. Regarding your question, it all depends on what you want to do in film but I would be shooting daily, working on improving scripts, watching the works of filmmakers and cinematographers that inspire you and stuff of that nature. However, as others have pointed out - this sort of practice won't make you great but will probably just help you find your true, original style.

I think I know of this series of study. The psychologists are not just saying 10,000 hours are needed; they are saying the person has to practice constantly for 10 years - in fact, they have a 10 year rule, saying no one can be a virtuoso unless they spend AT LEAST a decade at their craft. Furthermore, they cannot just put in the time and expect to be great; they have to make constant painful adjustments, to improve their performance.

Fortune Magazine has a good summary on this.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm?postversion=2006101915

There have been lots of scientific studies about this. And if you read those, then it all makes sense. Very interesting stuff. In a book about creativity, by "Steinberger" I think. Or something like that.

I agree with the initial statement. Filmmaking is such a broad category as to be mostly worthless for this type of number. I've heard piano (Beethoven) and golf (Tiger Woods) as two examples of this number in action but they are very specific disciplines while Filmmaking covers so many overlapping specialties I'm not sure how it would actually apply.

Beyond that, what is expert mastery in Filmmaking? That doesn't necessarily correspond to success, or good taste. and seems to be entirely a judgement call.