As the dad of a 3 1/2 year old it drives me NUTS that Disney puts so many ads on the beginning of their videos. On the DVD it's a little easier to buzz past them, but my wife has a collection of Disney movies on tape that my daughter LOVES to watch and you have to fast-forward through all that crap. It especially drives me NUTS that half of them are ads for Disney movies that aren't available anymore.
By the way, sorry if my last post was a little too politcal. I try not to get into that kind of stuff since there is no end to political blogs, but you now, every once in a while...
Friday, December 09, 2005
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tookie and the Movies
I read a piece in the LA Times this morning by Steve Lopez. He went to talk to prisoners about the pending execution of Tookie Williams and found that most of the prisoners he talked to either had not heard of Tookie's message of personal redemption or his children's books or if they had heard of him they hadn't gotten the message. In some cases, they finally got the message when they were facing life in prison. It was an interesting piece because not only did it point out that perhaps those Tookie Williams is said to be helping are not really being helped, it reminded me very much of a film I love and it pointed out to me why film can be a true looking glass into our world.
Angels With Dirty Faces
was a 1938 film staring James Cagney, Pat O'Brien and Humphrey Bogart. It was directed by Michael Curtiz (who later went on to direct, among others, Casablanca.) It was the story of two men, a gangster, Rocky, played by Cagney and a Priest, Jerry, played by O'Brien who grew up together but lead vastly different lives. It's also the story of a group of kids (The Dead End Kids) who idolize Rocky (Bogart played a supporting role.) The part of it that speaks today and the part of it that Lopez's piece reminded me of was at the very end. Rocky is on death row awaiting execution when Jerry comes to see him. He tells Rocky, who remains cocky and defiant even hours before his execution that he can have a heart, that he can basically redeem himself at the end, by dying a coward - making a big show of being afraid to die. Rocky is a hero to the kids who are headed toward a gangster life and he will be idolized in death. But if he "dies yellow," then, maybe the kids will see things differently. Maybe they'll see that life is worth living the right way.
Though I am opposed to the death penalty (my libertarian leanings just refuse to let me wrap my mind around the State taking someone's life, regardless of the crime,) I still feel a little uneasy about this case or at least the furor surrounding it. The calls for clemency all revolve around Tookie's alleged jail house redemption (though not around his claims of innocence, which I find curious) and of his so-called value to society. He's written children's books, after all, trying to dissuade kids from a life of crime (though of dubious value if the Lopez piece is accurate - who, besides death penalty opponents is reading these books?) and has been nominated for Nobel Prizes. But it strikes me as a little ingenuous. What is the message we send with this? You can live a life of crime, you can rob and murder, but if you write a few kids books it's alright, the world will come to your aid in your final moment and save you. Who, exactly, is going to be dissuaded from a life of crime by that?
It presents one of the problems with capital punishment in a modern world and it's exemplified by this film. It's an issue that isn't in the film itself, it isn't even in the backstory, but it is an issue that is within the setting of the film. It is not the issue of whether Tookie Williams is executed or not executed (though I imagine that it is very much the issue for Tookie,) it isn't the issue of whether or not he is truly redeemed, it isn't the issue of a few kids books or a Nobel nomination. It's the issue of our society's attitude over this and over him. It's an issue over the message we're sending. The message from "Angels with Dirty Faces" is one of pride, one of honor and one of courage. It is also a message of redemption, but the redemption in that film is not set against a demonstration of sympathy. Rocky, in that film, went to the chair an intentional coward (we think, though it's left ambiguous in the film,) a different kind of courage, as Father Jerry in the film calls it, and by doing so accepted responsibility for his life and his actions. It is his mea culpa. It was a hugely dramatic moment and clearly pulls the rug out from under a group of starry-eyed youngsters (the Dead End Kids) who see themselves as little Rockies. That, and not his defiance, showed the kids that the life they were headed down was wrong. It sent the message in a huge way - their hero was gone and he died not during the execution, but in the moments before it. What made that story work and what made that message poignant - and why it is important today - was the fact that Rocky was going to be punished for the crimes he committed. It was black and white, cut and dry, there was no way out because society at the time said - this is how it is, you break the law and you pay - that was the setting. It was a lesson that was far stronger than what's going on today. The kids were able to see it because it was strong and it was clear. It was not cluttered by arguments over the morality of Rocky's life or the morality of his death. He was wrong. What's more is he was allowed to be wrong.
In that sense it presents a problem with the death penalty. Death penalty opponents are so vociferous in their convictions that they are (or seem to be) willing to overlook the crime and send the message to kids (and perhaps other adults) that no matter what you do we're going to protect you - because society is wrong - it is society that is committing the crime. (It also makes life in prison seem like the easy way out.) The message that's being sent is not whether Tookie's life of crime was right or wrong but whether society is right or wrong. Tookie is the poster boy (for both sides, with the victims being overlooked in both cases.)
The sad part is that the kids who are supposed to be helped by this, the kids who are supposed to be dissuaded from a gang life, either by Tookie's books or by the deterrence of capital punishment are being given an entirely different message. The message that they are being given is ambiguous at best, ingenuous at worst. Clearly the case for deterrence is weak and clearly the only people reading Tookie's books are Nobel committees. The only way this will be solved - the only way these kids are going to get the message - is if society, as it was in 1938 in Angels With Dirty Faces, is all on the same page. But that was a long time ago. In that world there was no debate (or very little) regarding capital punishment. In this world there is. It is the debate that is the problem - it is the debate that is obscuring the nature of punishment - that is obscuring the message - and there is only one solution. Until the death penalty is off the table there can be, in our world, no true deterrence, no true punishment - there can be no clear message.
Angels With Dirty Faces
was a 1938 film staring James Cagney, Pat O'Brien and Humphrey Bogart. It was directed by Michael Curtiz (who later went on to direct, among others, Casablanca.) It was the story of two men, a gangster, Rocky, played by Cagney and a Priest, Jerry, played by O'Brien who grew up together but lead vastly different lives. It's also the story of a group of kids (The Dead End Kids) who idolize Rocky (Bogart played a supporting role.) The part of it that speaks today and the part of it that Lopez's piece reminded me of was at the very end. Rocky is on death row awaiting execution when Jerry comes to see him. He tells Rocky, who remains cocky and defiant even hours before his execution that he can have a heart, that he can basically redeem himself at the end, by dying a coward - making a big show of being afraid to die. Rocky is a hero to the kids who are headed toward a gangster life and he will be idolized in death. But if he "dies yellow," then, maybe the kids will see things differently. Maybe they'll see that life is worth living the right way.Though I am opposed to the death penalty (my libertarian leanings just refuse to let me wrap my mind around the State taking someone's life, regardless of the crime,) I still feel a little uneasy about this case or at least the furor surrounding it. The calls for clemency all revolve around Tookie's alleged jail house redemption (though not around his claims of innocence, which I find curious) and of his so-called value to society. He's written children's books, after all, trying to dissuade kids from a life of crime (though of dubious value if the Lopez piece is accurate - who, besides death penalty opponents is reading these books?) and has been nominated for Nobel Prizes. But it strikes me as a little ingenuous. What is the message we send with this? You can live a life of crime, you can rob and murder, but if you write a few kids books it's alright, the world will come to your aid in your final moment and save you. Who, exactly, is going to be dissuaded from a life of crime by that?
It presents one of the problems with capital punishment in a modern world and it's exemplified by this film. It's an issue that isn't in the film itself, it isn't even in the backstory, but it is an issue that is within the setting of the film. It is not the issue of whether Tookie Williams is executed or not executed (though I imagine that it is very much the issue for Tookie,) it isn't the issue of whether or not he is truly redeemed, it isn't the issue of a few kids books or a Nobel nomination. It's the issue of our society's attitude over this and over him. It's an issue over the message we're sending. The message from "Angels with Dirty Faces" is one of pride, one of honor and one of courage. It is also a message of redemption, but the redemption in that film is not set against a demonstration of sympathy. Rocky, in that film, went to the chair an intentional coward (we think, though it's left ambiguous in the film,) a different kind of courage, as Father Jerry in the film calls it, and by doing so accepted responsibility for his life and his actions. It is his mea culpa. It was a hugely dramatic moment and clearly pulls the rug out from under a group of starry-eyed youngsters (the Dead End Kids) who see themselves as little Rockies. That, and not his defiance, showed the kids that the life they were headed down was wrong. It sent the message in a huge way - their hero was gone and he died not during the execution, but in the moments before it. What made that story work and what made that message poignant - and why it is important today - was the fact that Rocky was going to be punished for the crimes he committed. It was black and white, cut and dry, there was no way out because society at the time said - this is how it is, you break the law and you pay - that was the setting. It was a lesson that was far stronger than what's going on today. The kids were able to see it because it was strong and it was clear. It was not cluttered by arguments over the morality of Rocky's life or the morality of his death. He was wrong. What's more is he was allowed to be wrong.
In that sense it presents a problem with the death penalty. Death penalty opponents are so vociferous in their convictions that they are (or seem to be) willing to overlook the crime and send the message to kids (and perhaps other adults) that no matter what you do we're going to protect you - because society is wrong - it is society that is committing the crime. (It also makes life in prison seem like the easy way out.) The message that's being sent is not whether Tookie's life of crime was right or wrong but whether society is right or wrong. Tookie is the poster boy (for both sides, with the victims being overlooked in both cases.)
The sad part is that the kids who are supposed to be helped by this, the kids who are supposed to be dissuaded from a gang life, either by Tookie's books or by the deterrence of capital punishment are being given an entirely different message. The message that they are being given is ambiguous at best, ingenuous at worst. Clearly the case for deterrence is weak and clearly the only people reading Tookie's books are Nobel committees. The only way this will be solved - the only way these kids are going to get the message - is if society, as it was in 1938 in Angels With Dirty Faces, is all on the same page. But that was a long time ago. In that world there was no debate (or very little) regarding capital punishment. In this world there is. It is the debate that is the problem - it is the debate that is obscuring the nature of punishment - that is obscuring the message - and there is only one solution. Until the death penalty is off the table there can be, in our world, no true deterrence, no true punishment - there can be no clear message.
Monday, December 05, 2005
The Dawn of the New Media
People have been talking about New Media for years now and in general they been talking about blogs. But blogs are really just a throw-back to the days of pamphleteering. But the New Media the New Media in terms of distribution of stories, the New Media that will sink the studios, close the networks and make the unions obsolete is finally here. In fact, though it's been here for a while, it is exemplified by the video iPod and Google.
I've been thinking about this for a while, ever since I gained the ability to shoot and edit an entire film in my garage, but now that I have the ability to distribute it to a worldwide audience, also from my garage I'm thinking about it more. I'm also thinking about it because of my recent departure from the union and because SAG and the WGA are rumbling about another strike.
There's been a lot of talk over the last few years regarding digital distribution of feature films - theatrical distribution, that is, but it hasn't really happened yet. Theater owners are reluctant to spend the money to upgrade projection systems since the economic benefit of such a system goes to the studios. But the studios have backed away from this for reasons including technology, piracy, and the cost (how many theaters worldwide would have to be converted?) There's also another reason which no one talks about and I'm not sure why. That reason is very simple and gets right back to me sitting in my garage. If theaters go digital and it winds up costing no more than the price of a blank DVD to produce a film print, then all the studios have left is their ability to make huge blockbusters that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and their advertising budgets.
But if I make a film that people want to see, one with, presumably, a great story and great characters (something that isn't guaranteed by hundreds of millions of dollars and advertising budgets) that doesn't cost much to produce, say something like (a modern) Maltese Falcon (though minus the star names) and can get it out and build word of mouth and people want to see it - then (and I'm fantasizing here for a moment) I'm not going to need the studios. I can post it on free on iTunes and someone, in their quest for Desperate Housewives, may find it there and like it and email it to a friend and if enough people like it (now I'm really fantasizing) they'll email it to more friends and they'll email it to friends and if enough people get interested and enough people want it I can sell the DVD to make back my money (or simply charge a small fee to download it) or a theater chain may pick it up and if all I have to do is burn DVDs... bye, bye Universal.
And bye, bye Unions. You see at that level I'm not going to need SAG or the WGA or the DGA or IATSE. Sure they'll come after me for my next film, but I'll only need them if I sign a huge contract with a studio. If I make my next film the same way I made the first then who needs unions? Of course the obvious question is what about star names? You can't sell a film without star names, but you see in this world of new media - the PROCESS is the star name.
Sounds implausible? Sounds far too simple? Sounds hilarious? Laugh away, but this is exactly how Google became - well, Google. And by the way, it only took one Google to shake up the Web.
I've been thinking about this for a while, ever since I gained the ability to shoot and edit an entire film in my garage, but now that I have the ability to distribute it to a worldwide audience, also from my garage I'm thinking about it more. I'm also thinking about it because of my recent departure from the union and because SAG and the WGA are rumbling about another strike.
There's been a lot of talk over the last few years regarding digital distribution of feature films - theatrical distribution, that is, but it hasn't really happened yet. Theater owners are reluctant to spend the money to upgrade projection systems since the economic benefit of such a system goes to the studios. But the studios have backed away from this for reasons including technology, piracy, and the cost (how many theaters worldwide would have to be converted?) There's also another reason which no one talks about and I'm not sure why. That reason is very simple and gets right back to me sitting in my garage. If theaters go digital and it winds up costing no more than the price of a blank DVD to produce a film print, then all the studios have left is their ability to make huge blockbusters that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and their advertising budgets.
But if I make a film that people want to see, one with, presumably, a great story and great characters (something that isn't guaranteed by hundreds of millions of dollars and advertising budgets) that doesn't cost much to produce, say something like (a modern) Maltese Falcon (though minus the star names) and can get it out and build word of mouth and people want to see it - then (and I'm fantasizing here for a moment) I'm not going to need the studios. I can post it on free on iTunes and someone, in their quest for Desperate Housewives, may find it there and like it and email it to a friend and if enough people like it (now I'm really fantasizing) they'll email it to more friends and they'll email it to friends and if enough people get interested and enough people want it I can sell the DVD to make back my money (or simply charge a small fee to download it) or a theater chain may pick it up and if all I have to do is burn DVDs... bye, bye Universal.
And bye, bye Unions. You see at that level I'm not going to need SAG or the WGA or the DGA or IATSE. Sure they'll come after me for my next film, but I'll only need them if I sign a huge contract with a studio. If I make my next film the same way I made the first then who needs unions? Of course the obvious question is what about star names? You can't sell a film without star names, but you see in this world of new media - the PROCESS is the star name.
Sounds implausible? Sounds far too simple? Sounds hilarious? Laugh away, but this is exactly how Google became - well, Google. And by the way, it only took one Google to shake up the Web.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Two in One Day
I read a story in the LA Times this morning about a blog called, Totally Unauthorized. It's written by a female juicer and done quite well. At least it's got me all misty and nostalgic for the 14-17 hour days (and nights) of pain and suffering.
In truth, I liked working on a film crew. There's something about it that's exciting and fun and you can, though not always, get paid pretty well for it. I always loved it when we blew stuff up and did big stunts, stuff like that - stuff you just don't see in everyday life (unless you live in Iraq.) It's funny too, how the horror stories, the stories of freezing cold, or blazing heat always seem to get me nostalgic. I made great friends and even got one of two on screen credits (though not many.)
But it's been a while and I'm on to other things (the last real show I worked on, other than commercials, was Lizzie McGuire and it was a wonderful way to go out. Great crew, great cast, everyone was friendly and nice and we had KILLER hours. I would actually be home by dinner most nights.) As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm out of the union and officially done ACing. It was a tough decision for me to make, because getting in was an accomplishment that I was proud of and I put 10 years into it, but I can't go back to crew work now. It's too hard on family life and it's too hard on a directing career. I thought that working on crew, working your way up from the factory floor, as a mentor of mine once said, would give you some credibility (I actually know HOW to make a film) but it doesn't. I started to get a lot more responses to my directing resume once I took my camera assisting work off of it.
The problem is I love the business and I'm good at what I do (pardon the tiny ego trip.) In fact I've become kind of an idiot savant about film making and I feel it's what I was meant to be doing. The trick is I'm not very good at promoting myself and pushing myself (in spite of my mini ego trip only a couple of sentences back,) and in Hollywood that's 98% of the job. Looking back on it, I think it would have been a lot better had I been good at say, real estate or law or finance, but alas...
In truth, I liked working on a film crew. There's something about it that's exciting and fun and you can, though not always, get paid pretty well for it. I always loved it when we blew stuff up and did big stunts, stuff like that - stuff you just don't see in everyday life (unless you live in Iraq.) It's funny too, how the horror stories, the stories of freezing cold, or blazing heat always seem to get me nostalgic. I made great friends and even got one of two on screen credits (though not many.)
But it's been a while and I'm on to other things (the last real show I worked on, other than commercials, was Lizzie McGuire and it was a wonderful way to go out. Great crew, great cast, everyone was friendly and nice and we had KILLER hours. I would actually be home by dinner most nights.) As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm out of the union and officially done ACing. It was a tough decision for me to make, because getting in was an accomplishment that I was proud of and I put 10 years into it, but I can't go back to crew work now. It's too hard on family life and it's too hard on a directing career. I thought that working on crew, working your way up from the factory floor, as a mentor of mine once said, would give you some credibility (I actually know HOW to make a film) but it doesn't. I started to get a lot more responses to my directing resume once I took my camera assisting work off of it.
The problem is I love the business and I'm good at what I do (pardon the tiny ego trip.) In fact I've become kind of an idiot savant about film making and I feel it's what I was meant to be doing. The trick is I'm not very good at promoting myself and pushing myself (in spite of my mini ego trip only a couple of sentences back,) and in Hollywood that's 98% of the job. Looking back on it, I think it would have been a lot better had I been good at say, real estate or law or finance, but alas...
It's slow
My world has slowed down. Not my actual world, but my film world. I have so many things going on, so many ways I'm trying to actually make money that my film world has taken a back seat. Well, until now. I've started writing again in earnest and I intend to make something happen soon.
It seems, Grande Con Carne, the film, has died on the vine. One of my principal actors has moved to another state and although that shouldn't stop me, I may let it. The idea of writing a film as I went along and shooting it as I went along, seemed like a lot of fun, but it actually drove me NUTS. It wasn't right and although there were shining moments - and I discovered some very happy things about friends - the overall experience wasn't my cup of tea. Given the way I like to direct, given how I want to know everything there is to know about a story, inside and out - this just wasn't the way to do it.
THOUGH - my crew and cast were fantastic and I think I can easily make a film with them - with the technical limitations that we had - I just need it to be the right film.
In other news, I'm officially out of the camera union. Thank God.
It seems, Grande Con Carne, the film, has died on the vine. One of my principal actors has moved to another state and although that shouldn't stop me, I may let it. The idea of writing a film as I went along and shooting it as I went along, seemed like a lot of fun, but it actually drove me NUTS. It wasn't right and although there were shining moments - and I discovered some very happy things about friends - the overall experience wasn't my cup of tea. Given the way I like to direct, given how I want to know everything there is to know about a story, inside and out - this just wasn't the way to do it.
THOUGH - my crew and cast were fantastic and I think I can easily make a film with them - with the technical limitations that we had - I just need it to be the right film.
In other news, I'm officially out of the camera union. Thank God.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Vindicated by the LA Times
In apparent http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifresponse to my posting, the LA Times agrees that the recent box office slump was due to the fact that most of the movies studios were putting out SUCKED.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Set up and punch line
It's been too long since I posted here. I've been busy. I've bee shooting, Burning, blogging and writing - I finished one script and polished another and now I'm trying to get them out. One is an R-comedy and one is a horror film. Both are hot genres, so you'd think I'd have people lined up to read them.
Ha-ha-ha-ha....
Sorry - as much as I love it, I'm a little down on the film "business" at the moment.
Yet still, two friends and I have formed a project called Three Minute Films. It's a short film company with the idea to make anything as long as we can fit it into three minutes. It's an idea to promote ourselves, work toward something bigger, build our chops, make some friends and contacts. For me it's a discipline. I've never been drawn to the short film as a medium - meaning I've never really wanted to make one before. I do have some ideas and I love to watch really good shorts, I've just never felt I had that in me, so this project is a challenge. I have two ideas, one I like more than the other, both are comedy and both can be really funny, I think - if I can buckle down and write it. A friend told me that to think of a short film as if you're just telling a joke. And I think that makes a lot of sense. I just have sharpen my ideas to a set up and a punch line.
Ha-ha-ha-ha....
Sorry - as much as I love it, I'm a little down on the film "business" at the moment.
Yet still, two friends and I have formed a project called Three Minute Films. It's a short film company with the idea to make anything as long as we can fit it into three minutes. It's an idea to promote ourselves, work toward something bigger, build our chops, make some friends and contacts. For me it's a discipline. I've never been drawn to the short film as a medium - meaning I've never really wanted to make one before. I do have some ideas and I love to watch really good shorts, I've just never felt I had that in me, so this project is a challenge. I have two ideas, one I like more than the other, both are comedy and both can be really funny, I think - if I can buckle down and write it. A friend told me that to think of a short film as if you're just telling a joke. And I think that makes a lot of sense. I just have sharpen my ideas to a set up and a punch line.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
V-Life
My copy of V LIfe arrived in the mail recently, bundled in with my subscription to Variety - a periodical I convince myself I need to read on a regular basis. It's V-Life that I find mystifying. It's essentially a People Magazine for the film business, though who exactly relates to it, I'm not sure. I flip through it's pages with the same look on my face, I imagine, a homeless person has while flipping through People.
Friday, August 12, 2005
I saw a movie poster yesterday
I saw a movie poster yesterday in a video store window for the movie Hide and Seek, starring Robert deNiro and Dakota Fanning. What struck me about the poster, which was for the DVD version of the movie, was the note on it that proudly trumpted the 4 ALTERNATE endings available on the disc.
Think about that. 4 ALTERNATE endings. Which means that actually they shot 5 endings. Again, think about that. What does that mean? The possiblity is that in anticipation of a DVD release the producers put two major stars to work creating little snipets of film that very few people would ever see in the hopes that the slogan "4 Alternate endings" would entice more people to buy the thing. (probably at a cost 10 times what it cost to make my two films COMBINED.) OR they were lost. They didn't know what they were doing. That's kind of what it tells me.
You see, I have to confess that many of my projects have had alternate endings. I can go back through my folder of Final Draft documents and pull out version after version of scripts with many alternate endings - and beginings and middles too. But it doesn't cost anything to have alternate endings on paper. Having come from the world of camera I learned that when you have major talent in front of the lens, you should be ready. Have everything to you need to do the job right then and there. That too, should apply to directors and producers. My suspicion, and I think it applies to Hollywood in general these days, is that there were too many voices in the mix. Too many people were giving their opinion on what the movie should be. Have you ever sent a script to a friend to read and then gotten frustrated because they focused on one minute thing about the script - and ignored the whole rest of the plot, characters and story? Now imagine that friend is actually in charge of the project and you HAVE to do what they tell you. Now imagine that there's 10 of those friends. That's kind of what it's like to make a movie these days.
So what happens is that when 10 different people tell you to change 10 different things in your 2nd act - well...
You can wind up with 5 different endings.
Think about that. 4 ALTERNATE endings. Which means that actually they shot 5 endings. Again, think about that. What does that mean? The possiblity is that in anticipation of a DVD release the producers put two major stars to work creating little snipets of film that very few people would ever see in the hopes that the slogan "4 Alternate endings" would entice more people to buy the thing. (probably at a cost 10 times what it cost to make my two films COMBINED.) OR they were lost. They didn't know what they were doing. That's kind of what it tells me.
You see, I have to confess that many of my projects have had alternate endings. I can go back through my folder of Final Draft documents and pull out version after version of scripts with many alternate endings - and beginings and middles too. But it doesn't cost anything to have alternate endings on paper. Having come from the world of camera I learned that when you have major talent in front of the lens, you should be ready. Have everything to you need to do the job right then and there. That too, should apply to directors and producers. My suspicion, and I think it applies to Hollywood in general these days, is that there were too many voices in the mix. Too many people were giving their opinion on what the movie should be. Have you ever sent a script to a friend to read and then gotten frustrated because they focused on one minute thing about the script - and ignored the whole rest of the plot, characters and story? Now imagine that friend is actually in charge of the project and you HAVE to do what they tell you. Now imagine that there's 10 of those friends. That's kind of what it's like to make a movie these days.
So what happens is that when 10 different people tell you to change 10 different things in your 2nd act - well...
You can wind up with 5 different endings.
Monday, July 11, 2005
My approach to directing
Here's a letter I wrote applying for the CBS directing fellowship a few years ago. I was not selected, but looking back on it and seeing who they picked I'm not sure I had the right qualifications. Still, I think this statement was valuable for me to write. I'm actually thinking of including it on my reel.
Approach to Directing Statement – RJ Thomas
Through my experience on set, I have learned that a director must not only be an artist, but skilled in time management and communication. The best approach lies in preparing and understanding the material. It is the only way to shape a vision, communicate it to cast and crew and take advantage of the talents they bring to the project.
Commitment to text is an important part of the process. Commitment does not mean blind allegiance to specific words, but rather to the text as a whole. In an ideal world, script changes would be made and discussed early on. But production is a fluid process and creative people will make suggestions until the camera rolls. Great ideas can emerge this way, but it is critical to know what affect an idea will have on the finished project before using it. There are times when a minor change can be a terrific asset, but there are also times when it can create major problems. What feels right for a character or the camera in a particular scene might be dreadfully wrong for the story. It is my job to decide when and if these ideas will work. The only way to do this is to have a consistent and committed knowledge and vision of the text as a whole work.
Working with actors can be rewarding and challenging. I like to give actors an overall direction and then to refine that as we work through rehearsals and they bring ideas to the table. Not only does this benefit the actor’s performance, it can provide me with additional insight into the material and the actor’s working method. If time is sparse, even the quickest table read can provide valuable insight. In series work, where character and motivation are well established, this approach can help a director get into the working dynamic of the show. It is important to go into this process as prepared and committed to the project as possible. A confident and knowledgeable director can inspire actors and draw better performances and ideas out of them. As before, it is my job to decide which ideas work and to make these choices understandable to my cast.
In the same way, being able to communicate and work well with your crew can vastly improve a project. Ideas can come from the Director of Photography, props, make-up, wardrobe or just about anyone. The key is to be alert for ideas that work and ideas that do not. Additionally, when a crew is treated with respect, they will work harder, better and faster -- all of which can improve a project.
My experience directing, in production and as a camera assistant, working with dozens of directors, watching rehearsals and setting up every shot has provided me with a unique and valuable education. In observing the best and the worst, I have learned that a strong artistic vision is important, but preparation and strong communication skills are essential. I’ve had great success applying this to the films I’ve directed and hope to refine this process in the future
Approach to Directing Statement – RJ Thomas
Through my experience on set, I have learned that a director must not only be an artist, but skilled in time management and communication. The best approach lies in preparing and understanding the material. It is the only way to shape a vision, communicate it to cast and crew and take advantage of the talents they bring to the project.
Commitment to text is an important part of the process. Commitment does not mean blind allegiance to specific words, but rather to the text as a whole. In an ideal world, script changes would be made and discussed early on. But production is a fluid process and creative people will make suggestions until the camera rolls. Great ideas can emerge this way, but it is critical to know what affect an idea will have on the finished project before using it. There are times when a minor change can be a terrific asset, but there are also times when it can create major problems. What feels right for a character or the camera in a particular scene might be dreadfully wrong for the story. It is my job to decide when and if these ideas will work. The only way to do this is to have a consistent and committed knowledge and vision of the text as a whole work.
Working with actors can be rewarding and challenging. I like to give actors an overall direction and then to refine that as we work through rehearsals and they bring ideas to the table. Not only does this benefit the actor’s performance, it can provide me with additional insight into the material and the actor’s working method. If time is sparse, even the quickest table read can provide valuable insight. In series work, where character and motivation are well established, this approach can help a director get into the working dynamic of the show. It is important to go into this process as prepared and committed to the project as possible. A confident and knowledgeable director can inspire actors and draw better performances and ideas out of them. As before, it is my job to decide which ideas work and to make these choices understandable to my cast.
In the same way, being able to communicate and work well with your crew can vastly improve a project. Ideas can come from the Director of Photography, props, make-up, wardrobe or just about anyone. The key is to be alert for ideas that work and ideas that do not. Additionally, when a crew is treated with respect, they will work harder, better and faster -- all of which can improve a project.
My experience directing, in production and as a camera assistant, working with dozens of directors, watching rehearsals and setting up every shot has provided me with a unique and valuable education. In observing the best and the worst, I have learned that a strong artistic vision is important, but preparation and strong communication skills are essential. I’ve had great success applying this to the films I’ve directed and hope to refine this process in the future
Friday, July 08, 2005
I guess it's about time
I guess it's about time for me to write here again. It's been awhile and - alas - the goldfish has perished. I must say though that for a 15 cent goldfish from Petmart, it lasted a hell of a long time in it's little goldfish bowl. But as all things it finally turned out to be dust in the wind. And flushed in the toilet.
And I must apologize to any and all faithful readers I may have. We had some shit going on here and so I was otherwise occupied for a little while. Personal and work kind of stuff. Editing for a company in El Segundo. I'm not sure what it is about Final Cut, or maybe it's the process of Non-linear editing in general - but whatever part of my brain that's stimulated by it causes other parts to shut down. After three days working on it I couldn't figure out that 10-7 minus an hour for lunch is an 8 hour day. But I could cut a minute and a half out of a 4 minute trailer in about 20 minutes. And leave it seamless.
Weird.
And I realize this posting had little to do with film, but I'm getting warmed up. I'll write more later and tomorrow.
And I must apologize to any and all faithful readers I may have. We had some shit going on here and so I was otherwise occupied for a little while. Personal and work kind of stuff. Editing for a company in El Segundo. I'm not sure what it is about Final Cut, or maybe it's the process of Non-linear editing in general - but whatever part of my brain that's stimulated by it causes other parts to shut down. After three days working on it I couldn't figure out that 10-7 minus an hour for lunch is an 8 hour day. But I could cut a minute and a half out of a 4 minute trailer in about 20 minutes. And leave it seamless.
Weird.
And I realize this posting had little to do with film, but I'm getting warmed up. I'll write more later and tomorrow.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
How I write
Sorry,
It's been a while since I posted anything. I've been struggling, alternately, with a script I'm writing and a series of bad sinus headaches. (I mean a headache like, is that a sinus headache or did someone jab a railroad spike behind my left eye?)
But on the flip side, I think the script is coming along well. I'm working on a 2nd draft and the process has been pretty interesting. I sat down and wrote a first draft all the way through, except without a definite ending. I didn't write an ending because I knew that when I went back and started working on it again things were going to change dramatically. When I write a 1st draft I just try to power through - even if what I'm writing is stupid, I'll just crank it out because 90% of what I do happens when I rewrite and as long as I have something to work with the ideas flow.
So I printed it out and sat down with a pen and started the rewrite. I go through it and change things, rewrite dialogue, rewrite and move scenes around - work on the thing as a whole - cross out page after page after page - but all with a pen on the printed page.
Then I sit back down at the computer and start to enter things in. Of course, this is more than just typing - things change here too. In this particular case I had a radical change at this point that I knew was going to be an enormous amount of work because almost every scene would have to change - but it works - it's much for the script - and it makes sense, so I had to go with it.
I'm half-way through this draft. It's going a little slowly because of the change, but I think it's a lot better. The problem is that I think it's going to need at least one more pass of this whole process before I can show it to anyone.
It's been a while since I posted anything. I've been struggling, alternately, with a script I'm writing and a series of bad sinus headaches. (I mean a headache like, is that a sinus headache or did someone jab a railroad spike behind my left eye?)
But on the flip side, I think the script is coming along well. I'm working on a 2nd draft and the process has been pretty interesting. I sat down and wrote a first draft all the way through, except without a definite ending. I didn't write an ending because I knew that when I went back and started working on it again things were going to change dramatically. When I write a 1st draft I just try to power through - even if what I'm writing is stupid, I'll just crank it out because 90% of what I do happens when I rewrite and as long as I have something to work with the ideas flow.
So I printed it out and sat down with a pen and started the rewrite. I go through it and change things, rewrite dialogue, rewrite and move scenes around - work on the thing as a whole - cross out page after page after page - but all with a pen on the printed page.
Then I sit back down at the computer and start to enter things in. Of course, this is more than just typing - things change here too. In this particular case I had a radical change at this point that I knew was going to be an enormous amount of work because almost every scene would have to change - but it works - it's much for the script - and it makes sense, so I had to go with it.
I'm half-way through this draft. It's going a little slowly because of the change, but I think it's a lot better. The problem is that I think it's going to need at least one more pass of this whole process before I can show it to anyone.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
New Movie for Today
The new movie link for today - over there on the right hand side - is "The Man Who Shot Libery Valance." It's really one of the true greats of American Cinema and a line of dialogue in it has permeated our popular culture in the form of every impression of John Wayne that you've ever heard. If you've ever heard someone use the word "pilgrim" in John Wayne's voice, it's from this movie. Directed by John Ford.
The theater vs. The DVD
It's funny. There's a ton of buzz these days in the press about how the DVD is taking over from the theatrical experience. People are buying DVD's in a way that no one ever expected and avoiding theaters in a way that no one ever expected. So - the natural conclusion is that people aren't going to theaters because they can have this sweet, kick-ass home theater experience at home AND there's all those sweet extras on DVD. Here's my problem with that. I work in the film business - among people who really, really, really dig movies. You know how many people I know who have really sweet, kick-ass home theater set ups? People who have their TV sets finely tuned so that each and every color is presented the way God and Vittorio Storaro intended? People who don't have table lamps reflecting in the TV screen?
zip.
nada.
none.
Well, the argument goes, the release dates for theatrical and DVD are getting so close that DVD must be cannibalizing the market. Possibly. But I think there's something more to it.
Think about it. People have been gathering around the campfire to hear/watch stories being told since before there were campfires. The modern theatrical experience can surely be traced to the ancient Greeks and earlier. Meaning that people have been going to theaters to see drama for at least several thousand years. Could it really, really be that we're just DYING for an excuse to sit by ourselves in our boxer shorts and watch "Spider Man 2?" Could that really be it? Could it really be that the laws of supply and demand and the communal experience which is thousands of years old, are actually being totally inverted by the existence of the DVD?
Or could it be that the theatrical experience just ain't cutting it? I mean the biggest movie of the year is clearly going to be Star Wars and the best I've heard anyone say of it is, "it doesn't suck." Could it be that it's just not that much fun anymore to pay $10 a ticket to watch commercials, three-act trailers (a whole other post) and then get to sit through a remake of an old TV show?
Perhaps that's why my DVD collection doesn't include any "current releases."
zip.
nada.
none.
Well, the argument goes, the release dates for theatrical and DVD are getting so close that DVD must be cannibalizing the market. Possibly. But I think there's something more to it.
Think about it. People have been gathering around the campfire to hear/watch stories being told since before there were campfires. The modern theatrical experience can surely be traced to the ancient Greeks and earlier. Meaning that people have been going to theaters to see drama for at least several thousand years. Could it really, really be that we're just DYING for an excuse to sit by ourselves in our boxer shorts and watch "Spider Man 2?" Could that really be it? Could it really be that the laws of supply and demand and the communal experience which is thousands of years old, are actually being totally inverted by the existence of the DVD?
Or could it be that the theatrical experience just ain't cutting it? I mean the biggest movie of the year is clearly going to be Star Wars and the best I've heard anyone say of it is, "it doesn't suck." Could it be that it's just not that much fun anymore to pay $10 a ticket to watch commercials, three-act trailers (a whole other post) and then get to sit through a remake of an old TV show?
Perhaps that's why my DVD collection doesn't include any "current releases."
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Movies You Should See
I've started a new list of links over on the right called "Movies You Should See." I've actually started it with Tora, Tora, Tora - not exactly an independent film, but considering it was just Memorial Day, one that's on my mind. It's a fantastic movie about the attack on Pearl Harbor that is told from the Japanese point of view as well as the American Point of view. It's almost like two movies in one. (The Japanese part is in subtitles.) Anyway - if any of you went out and bought that Michael Bay travesty please sell it to one of those places that buy used DVDs and go buy this one instead. As the days go by I'm going to add movies to this list - basically just my favorite movies - but they are all great - and hopefully there will be a few you haven't seen yet. I'm also going to do books - but there are really very few truly great film books - so it won't be that long a list. Of course, as I write, titles are starting to pop into my brain, so maybe I should go ahead and amend that right now. Nah, I'll just leave it.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Finally have some video up
So I finally have some video up, here and here and here. The first is Suicide Drive - the video I spoke of below. You'll be able to see the use of the hand-held light I was talking about. The others are also great uses of inexpensive lights and 24 Frame video. In fact, all of them, including this one were shot in 24p except Suicide Drive which was shot on regular video, then deinterlaced. I also used a process on it where you add a video layer of noise under the whole thing, then bring down the opacity (very slightly) of the top track so that it has the appearance of grain. It's a pretty neat effect. Take a look.
On Invasion and She Likes Skulls, I had a Lowell kit with me, though due to some bad prep on my part - no spare bulbs. The kit contained two Lowell omnis and two totas. THOUGH - only one of each had good bulbs. The thing is, since I was feeling flush with my "professional" lighting kit (though it's probably 30 years old) I didn't bring any of my other "kit" so I literally shot those two videos with only two lights. Both of those videos were shot in the same day. Skulls - I literally shot in 20 minutes. It's an interesting story and one I'll have to write about later. In the meantime - enjoy.
On Invasion and She Likes Skulls, I had a Lowell kit with me, though due to some bad prep on my part - no spare bulbs. The kit contained two Lowell omnis and two totas. THOUGH - only one of each had good bulbs. The thing is, since I was feeling flush with my "professional" lighting kit (though it's probably 30 years old) I didn't bring any of my other "kit" so I literally shot those two videos with only two lights. Both of those videos were shot in the same day. Skulls - I literally shot in 20 minutes. It's an interesting story and one I'll have to write about later. In the meantime - enjoy.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
For those of you who went thundering off to Home Depot.
So I was at the Depot tonight and took a look in the flourescent light section. There were no Optimas to be had. I'll have to chat with a gaffer about this - but there were some flos that were 3000k (a little warmer than regular tungsten) and lights at 5800K a touch bluer than daylight. Interesting. They also had the usual ass colored flourescent lights.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Lights
Wow, it's been a few days since I posted.
Today I'm going to post about - lights. Yes, finally lights. This is going to be a kind of general posting regarding what to look for, then as the days and weeks go by I'm going to post more specifics.
Let me start by telling you about a music video I shot with lights from Home Depot. What I had was two of those silver clip-on shop lights, a fluorescent fixture with two bulbs and one of those silver shop lights that are in a kind of oval cage that have a little hook on top so you can hang it anywhere. You tend to see guys using them to work on cars. I also had a collection of lightbulbs of various wattages. Most were incandescent household bulbs - but I had a few of the spot type bulbs as well - also in various wattages.
Now the key thing to remember about light is that it comes in two flavors (well color temperatures really,) 3200K and 5600K. 5600k is daylight - the sun at noon - 3200k is your reading lamp next to your bed. What's the difference between them? Well in a nutshell, 5600k is blue light and 3200k is yellow/orange light. This is why we white balance our cameras. While our eye adjusts - the camera can't (though some can but that's beside the point.) What white balancing means is that it tells the camera's computer what white is. From there it can interpret all the other colors. There are ways to play with this - white balancing on different colors, but that's a whole other post. But if you'd like an example of this - white balance your camera inside - with the house lights on - then point it out the window. All will be blue. (There are also color temps besides 3200 and 5600 but unless you have a color temperature meter and are shooting film - I wouldn't worry about them.) When you shoot film - you buy film specifically for a certain color temperature.
All the lights I was using on this video were 3200K - including the fluorescence. Most flos are hideous lights sources and turn up in nasty greenish tones when you balance for other colors but I was using Optima bulbs - meaning that they were balanced for 3200k. You can find these at HD, but you may have to look for them.
What I wound up using mostly were the silver shop lights with fairly low wattage bulbs in them. DV is pretty sensitive to light and two 35 watt bulbs made the place look like high noon. But that was the lowest I had, so I used those, but wrapped some tinfoil over the lights (poor-man's blackwrap (which is heavy tinfoil painted black)) to cut it down a bit. Depending on the shot, I would move these around, and clip them to whatever piece of furniture or doorway or tripod was nearby. The nice thing about them is that they are a fairly soft light to begin with. You can also plug them in to a dimmer to lower the intensity a bit.
I also used my flos as fill here and there - but they're a little more cumbersome to work with - though they looked great when laid - say - behind the drummer - on the floor shining up.
I also used the hanging shop light as a practical. I had the lead singer hand-hold it in shots and that was the only light on. He would move around the various band members and light them - or himself - as the song played. It looked very cool. And that was it - the whole lighting kit. If I get the chance, I'll post the video on my website. I'd love to hear - and post - other ideas people have for lights - just shoot me an email.
Today I'm going to post about - lights. Yes, finally lights. This is going to be a kind of general posting regarding what to look for, then as the days and weeks go by I'm going to post more specifics.
Let me start by telling you about a music video I shot with lights from Home Depot. What I had was two of those silver clip-on shop lights, a fluorescent fixture with two bulbs and one of those silver shop lights that are in a kind of oval cage that have a little hook on top so you can hang it anywhere. You tend to see guys using them to work on cars. I also had a collection of lightbulbs of various wattages. Most were incandescent household bulbs - but I had a few of the spot type bulbs as well - also in various wattages.
Now the key thing to remember about light is that it comes in two flavors (well color temperatures really,) 3200K and 5600K. 5600k is daylight - the sun at noon - 3200k is your reading lamp next to your bed. What's the difference between them? Well in a nutshell, 5600k is blue light and 3200k is yellow/orange light. This is why we white balance our cameras. While our eye adjusts - the camera can't (though some can but that's beside the point.) What white balancing means is that it tells the camera's computer what white is. From there it can interpret all the other colors. There are ways to play with this - white balancing on different colors, but that's a whole other post. But if you'd like an example of this - white balance your camera inside - with the house lights on - then point it out the window. All will be blue. (There are also color temps besides 3200 and 5600 but unless you have a color temperature meter and are shooting film - I wouldn't worry about them.) When you shoot film - you buy film specifically for a certain color temperature.
All the lights I was using on this video were 3200K - including the fluorescence. Most flos are hideous lights sources and turn up in nasty greenish tones when you balance for other colors but I was using Optima bulbs - meaning that they were balanced for 3200k. You can find these at HD, but you may have to look for them.
What I wound up using mostly were the silver shop lights with fairly low wattage bulbs in them. DV is pretty sensitive to light and two 35 watt bulbs made the place look like high noon. But that was the lowest I had, so I used those, but wrapped some tinfoil over the lights (poor-man's blackwrap (which is heavy tinfoil painted black)) to cut it down a bit. Depending on the shot, I would move these around, and clip them to whatever piece of furniture or doorway or tripod was nearby. The nice thing about them is that they are a fairly soft light to begin with. You can also plug them in to a dimmer to lower the intensity a bit.
I also used my flos as fill here and there - but they're a little more cumbersome to work with - though they looked great when laid - say - behind the drummer - on the floor shining up.
I also used the hanging shop light as a practical. I had the lead singer hand-hold it in shots and that was the only light on. He would move around the various band members and light them - or himself - as the song played. It looked very cool. And that was it - the whole lighting kit. If I get the chance, I'll post the video on my website. I'd love to hear - and post - other ideas people have for lights - just shoot me an email.
Friday, May 13, 2005
I mentioned lights
I was going to talk about lights wasn't I? Well I will - mostly because I just remembered that today - but I'm going to talk about lights.
Just not right now. I'm way too tired. I've been staring at FCP and DVD SP for the last two weeks straight (apart from my mini-vacations to write here (which were actually a few hours I had while my Mac crunched some video down to MPEG-2) - and my Sunday off to shoot Grande con Carne) so my brain is a little fried. Maybe you can tell.
But lights, lights, lights - I will talk about lights - and sound. I want to talk (well, write, really) (blues/jazz really) about sound! Because it's important you know. I mean without sound, we're all just doing... well silent film. But without film - sound is just - radio. And a day without sunshine is like - night.
TOO much time in front of the computer - too little time in front of real people.
Just not right now. I'm way too tired. I've been staring at FCP and DVD SP for the last two weeks straight (apart from my mini-vacations to write here (which were actually a few hours I had while my Mac crunched some video down to MPEG-2) - and my Sunday off to shoot Grande con Carne) so my brain is a little fried. Maybe you can tell.
But lights, lights, lights - I will talk about lights - and sound. I want to talk (well, write, really) (blues/jazz really) about sound! Because it's important you know. I mean without sound, we're all just doing... well silent film. But without film - sound is just - radio. And a day without sunshine is like - night.
TOO much time in front of the computer - too little time in front of real people.
David Lynch is shooting DV
By the way - I hope my post yesterday didn't come off as bitter. I'm really not. It's just part of the whole frustration inherent in the film business. It's just the struggle - you know? (which is a joke from a great film festival I went to (in any case - I get it.))
ANYWAY - there was a blurb in yesterday's Variety (actually it was from Wednesday's issue) about David Lynch shooting a movie on DV under the radar for the last two years. He's funding it himself and working with family and friends. Hmmm - that sounds awfully familiar. If it hadn't been going on for so long I would swear he was ripping me off. I haven't always been the biggest Lynch fan - but I have LOVED some of his stuff and think he's a talented filmmaker. It's really comforting to see that he's finally come down to my level. Go David!!! Of course he has a few slightly bigger names in front of his camera than I do - but I'm sure that situation will change.
It's funny because with the way DV cameras appear on the market - new ones quickly making old ones obsolete (or at least seem that way) I wonder how one works on a film for two years with the same camera. I mean I own a DVX100 (first generation) and I'm starting to feel like I don't have the "it" camera anymore. Which, of course, in terms of what is "it" I don't - but it's still a great camera.
ANYWAY - there was a blurb in yesterday's Variety (actually it was from Wednesday's issue) about David Lynch shooting a movie on DV under the radar for the last two years. He's funding it himself and working with family and friends. Hmmm - that sounds awfully familiar. If it hadn't been going on for so long I would swear he was ripping me off. I haven't always been the biggest Lynch fan - but I have LOVED some of his stuff and think he's a talented filmmaker. It's really comforting to see that he's finally come down to my level. Go David!!! Of course he has a few slightly bigger names in front of his camera than I do - but I'm sure that situation will change.
It's funny because with the way DV cameras appear on the market - new ones quickly making old ones obsolete (or at least seem that way) I wonder how one works on a film for two years with the same camera. I mean I own a DVX100 (first generation) and I'm starting to feel like I don't have the "it" camera anymore. Which, of course, in terms of what is "it" I don't - but it's still a great camera.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
I just added a counter to the Blog
I added a counter a while ago and I've been getting a ton of traffic. Lots of people reading - but I just figured out how to open it up - in other words - make it so everyone can see it. Though the number it's showing now is lower than than what the Site Meter report tells me. I'll have to work on it.
Oh - I see- that IS the right number of visitors - but the page views numbers are much higher.
Oh - I see- that IS the right number of visitors - but the page views numbers are much higher.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Mother, where do Directors come from?
A few weeks ago I was chatting with a friend. We were talking about production companies that make the straight to video monster/horror/slasher/erotic/thriller films that seem to fill up the halls at AFM. Now the reason we were talking about this was because we were wondering - 1: who do we talk to to get hired at one of them and 2: if you directed a film for a company like that would it hurt or help your career?
Then a month ago or so there was an article in the LA Times Calendar section about the new tidal wave of horror films and there was a quote from an executive at one of the companies (maybe the one that made Saw) who - when asked about older horror film directors who have experience vs. younger first-time filmmakers who have no experience: he said (and I'm paraphrasing) I'd rather hire someone who is going to do something new and fresh even if they don't know what the fuck they're doing (which is basically what Saw was - a great pitch followed by 90 minutes of film.)
AND a year or so ago I had a meeting with a VP of Production for a major film company (that a friend of mine had gotten me) and he said, "you should make a short." To which I responded - "But I've already directed two features." To which he responded, "yes, but the sad thing is that most people who would hire you to direct a whole feature don't actually want to take the time to sit down and watch a whole feature."
And then there was an editorial by Peter Bart in Variety recently talking about George Lucas. Now the article kind of talked about what a dork Lucas is but it also talked about his being friends with Coppola and them starting out together. And I started to think about that whole generation, which is, of course, the generation of filmmakers that I grew up admiring (especially Coppola (being an Italian kid from back east - he was kind of hero to me.) And people like Peter Bart and Robert Evans and all of them who were responsible for all those great movies - and I can't imagine them hiring someone to direct a $50 million film based on a short - and it occurred to me that maybe people in Hollywood these days don't really like movies all that much.
That could be why so many first-time directors get the chance to hack away at a few dozen rolls of film and tens of millions of dollars. Because where do Directors come from? They come from - film school, writing, festivals (which is OK - I guess, depending on how they get there - which is a WHOLE other long post,) music video and commercials.
But where did the Easy Riders and Raging Bulls come from? In essence they came from the same places - (those minus festivals and music video (and to a large extent commercials.) But they didn't leap off the page and start shooting the Godfather. How did they work their way up? Coppola made a film for Roger Corman called Dementia 13 then went on to direct a bunch of nudie movies before getting a real break. Scorsese (is that spelled right) Made a film on his own, then one for Corman (Box Car Bertha) then put together Mean Streets, Spielberg Sugarland Express and The Duel - but the point is these guys were making movies! That's how they learned! AND they were making movies that these days would get you a one-way ticket to palookaville. But here's the point. Making a movie is a task - a craft unlike anything else in the world. Making a 3 and half minute music video or a 30 second commercial does not qualify you do it. The only thing that qualifies you - trains you - for directing features is directing features. Now - of course there have to be first-time directors - of course people have to start - and doing all those other things IS a great place to start. It's a fantastic place to start - but making films for AFM and places like that is an even better place to start - it's a great place to go to from music videos or commercials and some people do. You can learn the craft without that much at stake. Because it's a hell of a lot better to make your mistakes when the film cost $1 million rather than when it costs $20 million - or more (or even $10 million.) And it's a great place to build a body of work that says - hey - I know what the fuck I'm doing.
Then again, if that's true - why do I want so desperately to take Sex Substitute 2 off my resume?
Then a month ago or so there was an article in the LA Times Calendar section about the new tidal wave of horror films and there was a quote from an executive at one of the companies (maybe the one that made Saw) who - when asked about older horror film directors who have experience vs. younger first-time filmmakers who have no experience: he said (and I'm paraphrasing) I'd rather hire someone who is going to do something new and fresh even if they don't know what the fuck they're doing (which is basically what Saw was - a great pitch followed by 90 minutes of film.)
AND a year or so ago I had a meeting with a VP of Production for a major film company (that a friend of mine had gotten me) and he said, "you should make a short." To which I responded - "But I've already directed two features." To which he responded, "yes, but the sad thing is that most people who would hire you to direct a whole feature don't actually want to take the time to sit down and watch a whole feature."
And then there was an editorial by Peter Bart in Variety recently talking about George Lucas. Now the article kind of talked about what a dork Lucas is but it also talked about his being friends with Coppola and them starting out together. And I started to think about that whole generation, which is, of course, the generation of filmmakers that I grew up admiring (especially Coppola (being an Italian kid from back east - he was kind of hero to me.) And people like Peter Bart and Robert Evans and all of them who were responsible for all those great movies - and I can't imagine them hiring someone to direct a $50 million film based on a short - and it occurred to me that maybe people in Hollywood these days don't really like movies all that much.
That could be why so many first-time directors get the chance to hack away at a few dozen rolls of film and tens of millions of dollars. Because where do Directors come from? They come from - film school, writing, festivals (which is OK - I guess, depending on how they get there - which is a WHOLE other long post,) music video and commercials.
But where did the Easy Riders and Raging Bulls come from? In essence they came from the same places - (those minus festivals and music video (and to a large extent commercials.) But they didn't leap off the page and start shooting the Godfather. How did they work their way up? Coppola made a film for Roger Corman called Dementia 13 then went on to direct a bunch of nudie movies before getting a real break. Scorsese (is that spelled right) Made a film on his own, then one for Corman (Box Car Bertha) then put together Mean Streets, Spielberg Sugarland Express and The Duel - but the point is these guys were making movies! That's how they learned! AND they were making movies that these days would get you a one-way ticket to palookaville. But here's the point. Making a movie is a task - a craft unlike anything else in the world. Making a 3 and half minute music video or a 30 second commercial does not qualify you do it. The only thing that qualifies you - trains you - for directing features is directing features. Now - of course there have to be first-time directors - of course people have to start - and doing all those other things IS a great place to start. It's a fantastic place to start - but making films for AFM and places like that is an even better place to start - it's a great place to go to from music videos or commercials and some people do. You can learn the craft without that much at stake. Because it's a hell of a lot better to make your mistakes when the film cost $1 million rather than when it costs $20 million - or more (or even $10 million.) And it's a great place to build a body of work that says - hey - I know what the fuck I'm doing.
Then again, if that's true - why do I want so desperately to take Sex Substitute 2 off my resume?
Dollies and doors and mass
I've decided I need movement and inertia. I'm not talking about my career - which already has more than enough inertia and not anywhere near enough movement, but I'm talking about my camere. The BIGGEST problem with these little miniDV cameras - specifically my DVX100 and others like it - is they're TOO GODDAMN LIGHT. There's no weight to them and handheld shots looks ridiculously jerky. It needs a little mass. Something beyond those little stedi-cam rigs that don't really work all that well. (although they're not bad) Something that keeps the camera small and compact. Something that just gives it a little weight so a twitch in your forearm doesn't look like the San Andreas fault just gave out. I'm going to work on this.
I also need movement - fluid movement - DOLLY movement. Most of this film so far has been shot either handheld or on sticks (or the recently invented laundry-room-door cam,) and I need to vary that. I need a dolly. AND there just so happens to be an article in MovieMaker magazine this month about building one. So I'm going to give it a shot.
Also - this may be a two post day. I have another topic I want to write about but it's going to take a few minutes to get it down.
I also need movement - fluid movement - DOLLY movement. Most of this film so far has been shot either handheld or on sticks (or the recently invented laundry-room-door cam,) and I need to vary that. I need a dolly. AND there just so happens to be an article in MovieMaker magazine this month about building one. So I'm going to give it a shot.
Also - this may be a two post day. I have another topic I want to write about but it's going to take a few minutes to get it down.
Monday, May 09, 2005
New pavement, laundry room doors and a hooker
We shot yesterday. Started out shooting a dialogue scene in a car. It's funny because sometimes you get a little lucky and this may have been one. We met at Connie's house at 9:30 (well - most of us got there at 9:30) and it turns out there was a road at the end of her street, with a long straight run, no traffic, and brand new pavement. It was wonderful.
I strapped them up with lavs and we shot.
Now of course we had no process trailer, no hostess trays, no car rigs. So we might have been limited to hand-held in the backseat, but Steve, my DP - had the idea to put down the back windows and run a board across (over) the backseat. The problem was that we didn't have any wood. But Steve noticed these thin doors Connie had for her laundry room and so we took one off and used that. Perfect. We put the camera on it on top of a sandbag - tossed a little more beach on top of the camera and that was that - perfect. So we shot and shot and then Steve jumped on the running board and we shot and shot and it all looked and sounded and turned out great. Then we did some drive bys, then we jumped in the car and headed downtown to steal a shot in the warehouse district.
Which is where - under the bridge downtown - we saw a deal go down with a guy in a white car and a hooker. Nothing like the spice of life in downtown LA. We just bounced around on sticks and got a lot of coverage of that. It was just a one page scene, so we had a little time to play with it.
It all looked good and sounded good and Connie and Scott did a great job. The rehearsal time really paid off.
Now I just have to start cutting some of this stuff together - oh yeah - and write the rest of the script.
I strapped them up with lavs and we shot.
Now of course we had no process trailer, no hostess trays, no car rigs. So we might have been limited to hand-held in the backseat, but Steve, my DP - had the idea to put down the back windows and run a board across (over) the backseat. The problem was that we didn't have any wood. But Steve noticed these thin doors Connie had for her laundry room and so we took one off and used that. Perfect. We put the camera on it on top of a sandbag - tossed a little more beach on top of the camera and that was that - perfect. So we shot and shot and then Steve jumped on the running board and we shot and shot and it all looked and sounded and turned out great. Then we did some drive bys, then we jumped in the car and headed downtown to steal a shot in the warehouse district.
Which is where - under the bridge downtown - we saw a deal go down with a guy in a white car and a hooker. Nothing like the spice of life in downtown LA. We just bounced around on sticks and got a lot of coverage of that. It was just a one page scene, so we had a little time to play with it.
It all looked good and sounded good and Connie and Scott did a great job. The rehearsal time really paid off.
Now I just have to start cutting some of this stuff together - oh yeah - and write the rest of the script.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Shooting Tomorrow
Grande Con Carne rides again. We're shooting two scenes tomorrow - one of two characters in a car driving - and one of two characters in a car parked. It's funny because after my last little piece of self-adulation on what a genius I was to figure out certain problems in the script - I realized last night that all I had done was to uncover a MAJOR problem elsewhere. Well, I'll worry about that on Monday.
Here's what we got going on:
Tomorrow:
Cast:
Connie and Scott
Crew:
Me and Steve
Gear:
DVX100
Panasonic shotgun mic (which by all accounts is an el-cheapo microphone that I got to use as a backup camera-mounted mic - and turns out has great range and a nice warm sound to it.)
also I'll probably use the two Sony wireless lavs I own.
And I may buy one of those lights you can plug into a cigarette lighter to help boost the ambiance inside the car so the outside doesn't vanish in a fog of superwhite pixels.
Where are we shooting? Beats me - we're going to drive around a little and find a place. But it isn't a lot of work, so winging it doesn't stress me out the way it would if we were, say, shooting a car chase (which I really don't think is going to happen in this film.) I will certainly let ya'll know how it goes.
By the way - does anyone know any good spots to shoot without a permit?
Here's what we got going on:
Tomorrow:
Cast:
Connie and Scott
Crew:
Me and Steve
Gear:
DVX100
Panasonic shotgun mic (which by all accounts is an el-cheapo microphone that I got to use as a backup camera-mounted mic - and turns out has great range and a nice warm sound to it.)
also I'll probably use the two Sony wireless lavs I own.
And I may buy one of those lights you can plug into a cigarette lighter to help boost the ambiance inside the car so the outside doesn't vanish in a fog of superwhite pixels.
Where are we shooting? Beats me - we're going to drive around a little and find a place. But it isn't a lot of work, so winging it doesn't stress me out the way it would if we were, say, shooting a car chase (which I really don't think is going to happen in this film.) I will certainly let ya'll know how it goes.
By the way - does anyone know any good spots to shoot without a permit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)