Since the moment he wryly asked for a martini, shaken and not stirred, James Bond cemented himself as an icon of filmic history. True, he hasn’t exactly been the cinema’s most original icon, but he has remained an icon. Once Bond’s torch moved beyond Connery however, his repetitious nature and slant towards action fare dissolved from charming into pointless. By the time Bronson picked up the character he was nothing more then a bag of clichés that had long since lost their spike.
With Casino Royale, the 21st installment in the Bond franchise, director Martin Campbell and his writing team of Neal Purvis, Paul Haggis and Robert Wade attempt, not to reinvent the legendary secret agent, but rather to return meaning to this legend. Having long been outpaced by other film heroes, Bond is given a chance to reclaim his throne. And with a new face behind the character (Daniel Craig) one asks, “Is the attempt at rejuvenation successful?”
What one should be asking is: Why does Casino Royale work when so many Bond films don’t? Simple; the filmmakers stopped treating the source material as one more unit in a long line of units and started treating the characters, the story and the settings as individual ingredients in a legitimate film. To my enjoyment, this movie doesn’t feel like a faceless Bond film, it feels like a film. It has its own nooks and crannies, its own voice. And the filmmakers all have so many ideas invested in it. The screenwriters have genuinely poured their hearts into each act of the story. The actors have created tremendously huge characters without the aide of what’s already been established. The cinematography is beautiful. By my count, it’s the first Bond film where the filmmakers sat down and thought the damned movie out. Beat for beat.
The result? Casino Royale is genuinely entertaining and enthralling. For that matter, Daniel Craig has created a Bond that isn’t just a quagmire of innuendo and gadgetry; he has created a Bond that is oafish and cast asunder by his own hubris, yet also blessed by his own cockiness. He created a thug. And more exciting then that, this is the first Bond film where its namesake truly gets beaten up. Not just by the villains, but by his superiors. He’s good, but not great. He’s witty, but not outright irresistible. He’s inadequate.
And his foes? They are good…damned good. They’re not just a group of pointless masterminds bent on ruling the world; they’re individuals dealing with their own set of pressures just as Bond is, and they possess skills that equal or surpass Bond’s own. Take Mads Mikkelson as Le Chiffre; he bleeds out his eyes when he’s stressed, looks like a throw-back to Connery-era villainy, and periodically sucks on an asthma inhaler. But at the card table, he schools Bond. Le Chiffre is a unique character and thankfully not just some guy pieced together because (doh) the film needed an antagonist. In summation, his poker-skills and overall influence upon the dramatic premise of the film aptly illustrates why this film works so well: everything is connected. Very little in this film is random or tossed into the mix just for extra bang. To quote Sunny Day Real Estate, “everything and everyone, and in the end we all are one”. This completeness, this sense of a unified whole helps advance Casino Royale into a realm of entertainment that even puts J. J. Abrams’ own Mission Impossible III on shaky ground.
Of course, the film does have its faults. Namely, it is extraordinarily long. But, its so thoroughly enthralling, so welcomed that such faults are easily overlooked.
The downside to this new approach to the Bond franchise is apparent however. Never again can they rightfully go back to the humdrum they poured out before. Having watched this Bond film, it will never be acceptable for the film’s producers and star to churn out mediocre and claim “sorry, we did our best”.
So many will respond, “oh, that’s not true”.
By now you've come to expect major droughts between my posts. So, what's noteworthy as of late? Not much in the way of movies. Not that there hasn't been any good ones (that may be the case), but I haven't had the opportunities to see much. However, I have come across some really good music.
Mew. Although deservingly making Pitchfork's Top 25 Worst Album Covers of 2006, I was immediately blown away by their song, The Zookeeper's Boy, upon first listen. It's so "over-the-top" prog rock, that it's cool. Brock will have to tell us more about them, as he's purchased the album. I need to get my hands on that!
Owen. New album. Good Stuff.
My Brightest Diamond. Opera trained voice, rockin', cute. What more do you want!? A song? Fine.
A new unspoken high school ritual is for some jock to play the Green Day song Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) on a warm acoustic at graduation. It’s cute. Preppy girls cry. In fact, nearly every student who valued those pointless four years cried. Part of me wonders if I’m disconnected from human experience on the whole, because at my graduation ceremony I did not cry. I guess I couldn’t feel what they felt.
But I swear to you, had some jock jumped in front of that dinky little TCM 245 classroom tonight (the very same classroom where I had my first production class at SCC), I would have gotten teary.
Yes, this evening, the venture known in my life as Scottsdale Community College came to an end.
Why would I have never even cried at High School, but considered it at SCC? Simply put, I had a role in what happened at this film school on the fringe of an Indian Reservation. I wasn’t a legend (far from it) but I was a character in the drama that unfolded around this hidden nook of campus. That in itself is of incalculable value.
Some consider my occupation at this school to be for the worse. I’ve been told that I’ve wasted my time. Do I consider my tenure at SCC to be of a negative impact? Not in the slightest; one thing I’ve learned this semester is that the finest individuals in the business are shaped by the experiences they’ve had in life. And yes, bad experiences are included in that. The worst filmmakers? They are the ones who instead create their own silent, white void. They mute.
With that in mind, being at SCC hasn’t strictly been a series of bad experiences, and it hasn’t strictly been a series of good experiences (lord no). It’s been both. But the most empowering experiences for the creative mind are those which reek of both the disquieting and the rosy. Both are illumination, but of a different breed. When I walked out of SCC tonight, I wasn’t just some kid who had participated in that community for the past two years. I shaped it. We built a tent in the school’s studios, loaded film in those studios. I bled in those studios! I saw a plethora of boys and girls peak and recede through my tenure…co-conspirators like Chad Einwalter who gave way to confidents like Drew Hoffman. I started school in the same classroom and ended it in the same classroom, but watched those sitting around me change in between. These people, these experiences shaped me into the person I am tonight…and from here on out. I learned that I am the main character in a film that only I can watch.
That being said, Green Day’s pop angst wasn’t appropriate for what I felt tonight, for the grand summation of my pain-riddled, harrowing adventure. As I strode out of that school, past the studios, past the dinky classroom, I played Psychocandy’s “Just Like Honey”.
Next time you’re wandering around SCC at night, dear reader, play that song and take a stroll down the walkway wedged between the LC and AP buildings. You won’t feel good. You won’t feel bad. You’ll feel what Brock H. Brown felt.
So, what’s the next screenplay going to be about?
Lord, I honestly don’t know. I have two ideas that I’m teetering between. Now that Documenting Ambler is done, I’m trying my best to determine what I want to write. Where will my mood shift? In all honesty, I have yet to finish Sin of the Opiate. But, I will do that over the Christmas/New Year period, hopefully. That screenplay writes itself (sort of)…it was always just a matter of finding time to write it.
Time, I now have in spades (or will soon have in spades).
Sin of the Opiate, I am sure, will dramatically change my mood and set me up for whatever it is I want to write next. Will I want to write a happy screenplay, complete with Hollywood stylization, or something a bit more serious? Perhaps I’ll even step towards something a tad edgier, less commercial? Whatever it is, I have to get something ready to write by the beginning of the year, because I have to keep going. This is it. This is the testing period. School will be out. If I can’t sustain myself through a steady output of writing, I’ll never have enough ammunition once I get myself past the door. That is, IF I get myself past the door. One obstacle at a time…at a time…
Two ideas – YES! I have two ideas that I am playing around with. One idea is ludicrously grand, could only be filmed by a name director, would be highly commercial, and would require a massive budget. I am of course talking about my Napoleon screenplay. Beyond the grandiosity of the idea, I ask myself – “do I really want to write this again?” Haven’t people come to expect this sort of thing from myself? Doesn’t Sin of the Opiate accomplish what this movie accomplishes, and in much more original terms?
Sure, sure – the central characters and conflicts in both movies are deeply unique. In Opiate, we have a Limehouse clinger-on who has to battle his addiction amidst the backdrop of a larger conflict. In Napoleon…well there’s only one-way you can take it, and that’s ego.
You don’t start at the beginning; you start at the beginning of the end: The Hundred Days. You base the movie around Napoleon’s return to power, when he’s ludicrously mythical to the European populace. The story begins after his exile. England and several other countries are gathered together to discuss just what to do with their corner of the world, now that old Napoleon is gone. Aristocrats plan marriages to unify bonds and bring together countries. And at the head of this return to Royalty is our villain in the story, the Iron Duke himself. Things are going splendidly. The Aristocrats will be in power again. England shall expand her power. Everyone’s pleased.
And then word breaks. Napoleon has returned.
What’s so amazing about this story is that, as Napoleon marched on the capital, tearing down the ambitions of these Aristocrats along the way, the media’s opinion of him shifted. First governed by Royalty, the press sniffed at his return, calling him a traitor and a criminal. By the time he entered the capital to take back his empire, those very same papers were hailing him as their lord and emperor.
The thing that’s also so cool about this story is that Napoleon built an army and took back Europe, NOT through specific actions…
…But through fear of what he could do.
He didn’t raise a finger, just marched. I love that. The guy was at the top of his game and he just returned from exile. Screw the Royalty. The cops fled. Freaking Napoleon was coming to town to settle some business. In a way, it’s kind of like that Mel Gibson movie, Payback, or Kill Bill…only, they still had to prove themselves. At this point, Napoleon had nothing to prove, and rightfully so. Sure, there’s conflict and danger there. Assassins and the like. And, of course, it all ends at Waterloo…
But the question that burns in my mind is “isn’t that exactly what I’d write?”
Where’s the challenge in The Hundred Days? There is no challenge. It’d be fun as hell, but would I stretch my skills? Probably not.
Now, that’s not to say that I’m a genius or that I’d turn out a perfect screenplay. Far from it. I’d still have to rewrite the heck out of it and hone it till it got somewhat snappy. The point is, between discussions on Castro with Josh, research of the British Empire, Wildlifeless and every other historical pursuit, I think I’ve got just about any film NOT set in our modern era down pat.
The second idea is a bit different. Get ready for it…
It’s a caper film. GROANS erupt everywhere. I know, I know. Of all the mundane, a-typical subjects to pick up, why a caper film? Cause, I think it would be a good study in craft. And, beyond that, I do have a couple of ideas on how I want to execute it.
First and foremost, you base the large part of the second act around the caper itself. Not the third act, as is typical in films. William Goldman laid down the formula for the caper film in one of his books, and sure enough, every caper film up to this day has been following it. So, let’s shake it up. Let’s pull an Unforgiven on the caper genre. Let’s utterly reinvent it, while at the same time retaining what makes it so great. And that is, comedy and back and forth banters. It’s the genius of the characters mingling together and succeeding, because of, or in spite of, their differences.
Our caper film will highlight that. We’ll base the second act around the heist. And we’ll play out the heist from every character’s point of view. Yes, every character in the crew will have the chance to be the protagonist for 15-20 minutes of the film. We’ll see THEIR challenges, their individual difficulties. This isn’t a caper film; it’s an episodic mini-series, centric to specific characters at a time, molded together into the arc of a larger narrative. This is Epic. Sprawling. The characters? They will have to be unique. The city of the heist? Forget France. Forget L.A., Italy…London…all that stuff. Let’s go somewhere new. Hyderabad. Moscow. Dubai. Let’s just drop the Versace for one damned minute and let this thing be what it needs to be…color.
And what do they steal? Diamonds? Cash? Art? No. No. No, NO.
They steal none of that. I can’t tell you what they steal. If I write it, and it gets made, then you can know what they steal. They steal something of faaaar greater worth. They, in essence, steal an idea.
Time shall tell which way I go on this…
Christopher Nolan has never been a director with a gift for creating sympathetic and personable characters. Just examine his filmography; therein you will find a plethora of men devoted largely to a cause and rarely to an emotion. And yet, he has never strived to create a character that resonates with the audience. Rather, he has taken a different road and created films in which the characters reflect facets of the main theme.
As a result, The Prestige is a terrible character film. Heartless to the core, this is a film that will leave you hard pressed to find a sympathetic face or a single touch of humility. It is absolutely horrid.
That being said, it is also one of the best films of the year.
I call it one of the best films of the year because it is able to elevate itself above its own flaws (which are many) and create a work of sheer cinema mathematics. Set in turn of the century England, The Prestige is the story of two stage magicians (Bale and Jackman) who engage in a heated and long-running rivalry with one another. Throughout this rivalry, both create astounding tricks and woo the company of various women. At the core of the film, they are always trying to one-up the other.
Against this backdrop, we are presented with two characters that play against the idea of heroism or empathy. Both Jackman’s Angier and Bale’s Borden engage in acts of anger, revenge and sheer violence. And no, this isn’t good-natured competition…blood is shed. As a result, one finds it hard to sympathize with either protagonist. Indeed, the film has no real villain…and no real hero. Instead, it has an idea, which it propels with the violence these two men inflict upon one another.
For some, this will undoubtedly be a turn off. But where the film finds success is not in its charismatic characters…or its virtuosity, but in its overall impression. This film isn’t presenting catharsis; it’s presenting an idea. That idea is furthered by every element in the film…from the birds killed throughout the story to the open field of top hats seen in the first frame. Everything in this film, the setup, the payoff, the foreshadowing, the visual themes and the film’s larger rivalry between scientists Tesla and Edison, all illuminate its message in different ways. When the last frame flickers across the screen you are left with a feeling of discomfort. There is no great kiss, no award ceremony. Just an unmistakable impression. Of what shouldn’t happen…but has. And the fact that the film uses all of the resources of a screenplay towards the gradual gestation of this impression makes The Prestige as powerful as a short story. Yes, it is a whole, a gestalt.
And yes, I am one of the first ones who will tell you that character is everything. But story is structure. And this film is an exercise in structure…complete with chaotic, jumbled editing (the magnificent bastards cut the entire film out of order) and a three-act model within the three-act film, guiding the narrative development.
Performance wise, Bale and Jackman are both sturdy. We’re not looking at anything remarkable here, but they do manage to keep the film going. Johansson gives one of the blandest performances of the year (although to be fair, her character was poorly written) and Michael Cain is Michael Cain. The real standout of the film is David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, the infamous scientist. His performance is guided by a calculated coolness. Who else but Bowie could take one of the oddest figures in scientific history and make him a complete badass?
If you go and see the Prestige, see it expecting a test in structure. This isn’t a character study; it is an attempt to see what can be done with thematic structure and how resolutely it can speak its message.
As it turns out, quite loudly.
Prepare yourself for a major announcement:
"Spinach is used toilet paper! It’s used toilet paper!"
Thank you.
Brock was worried about his lack of posts, yet, where have I been? More importantly, has anyone noticed? If no one has noticed, is it really that important? ;-)
One of the weeks among my long absence, I was in New York. Good times were had all around. How could you not have good times in New York? How could you not have the New York Times? Well, I didn't.
My last post - August 14th. Wow, almost two months. Was I in a coma? No, school started, and being that I work for the fastest growing school district in Arizona, I was quite busy. It's finally at a steady pace. Thank goodness. Perhaps I'll be around more. Brock's been feeling neglected.
Why spinach? Why not? Do yourself a favor, avoid E. Coli salads.
Hey, I just wanted to post a congrats to the folks behind Outisde In for its recent success at the Horror and Sci-Fi Film Festival. Thanks for helping me to create a creepy and unsettling film. I'm going to be honest...I've made far better films since Outside In, but no film (save for maybe Wildlifeless) truly feels like a film I would do. Outside In does. As far as I know, it isn't riffing off of anyone else's style. It's something we made happen on our own. So hurrah.
-Brock
Let’s chat a little bit about Lost for a moment here, and the reason why I am terribly worried about this season (and the series as a whole).
First of all, the series premier was awesome. It was beautifully directed, shot and edited. The visuals were amazing. The tone was unbelieveable. We learned more about those characters in the first 20 minutes then we learn about casual acquatances over a lifetime.
The second season’s premier took place on a much smaller scale. There were no exploding airplanes, no monsters in the jungle, no tremendous special effects. Most of it was shot in dark, brooding atmosphere. But sometimes I consider it to be far more effective then the pilot. Why? Because it rewarded viewers. People wanted to know just what the heck was inside that hatch…and right within the first 5 minutes, the episode revealed that. It answered questions. Sure, it raised more questions, but it answered the main question that was put forth by the previous season.
The season premier last night? I am so luke warm over it. So luke warm. Did it answer any questions? Not really. We already knew that “The Others” were supposedly far more sophisticated than what they let on. We knew that Henry Gale was their leader. We knew that they had a connection to Dharma. Did this episode elaborate upon them in any way other then what we already had a fair idea of? Absolutely not.
For that matter, did it enrich the series in any way, shape or form? No. Through Jack’s flashback we learn that he was stubborn and that he had a hard time letting things go. Big deal. The episode in which he tried to save Boone’s life developed that character trait far more sufficiently then this episode did. What a waste.
By the way, the production on this episode was amazing. Talk about great visuals. Worthless storyline.
Consider me severely unimpressed.
The best part about this film is that when it comes out, Matter of Chance will have beaten Disney to the punch by about two and a half years.
I tried to get my Production Binder for Pantomiming back from SCC yesterday (because it has some appearance releases I need) only to find out that it was possibly stolen. I gave the binder to the school after the film was done because my teacher asked for it. I guess they passed it out in class as a "teaching example" and some kid pocketed it. Ugh. I had all kinds of storyboards and notes and personal writings during the film's production in that binder. Some kid now has them. I feel so used.
...gonna blog.
I have some movies I want to review very soon (when the weekend is over). They include: The 5 Obstructions/Lawrence of Arabia/The Illusionist. I think you folks may be surprised with what my views are on these three films. Josh already reviewed The 5 O's quite nicely...but I wanted to review it again (cause this film is tremendous). I also wanted to chat about LOA because I had never seen it. And The Illusionist is new, so it's not like you're just getting a slew of DVD rentals here.
We build the tent set tomorrow for Wildlifeless. So much is going into this one scene. And it's only about a 3rd of the whole film. A ton of work went into the San Diego portion of the film, but it seems like this one portion of the story demands plenty of detail. Basically, there is a sequence in the film when Winston is inside a tent. There's a bunch of props involved, and once again we're using both the jib and the dolly. It's a very plush scene...mis en scene in this one set is crazy.
I'll be back over the weekend or early next week to chat about:
-The shoot
-The films
-What Flim Flam is.
I feel better today (Saturday was the worst day), even though I don't sound like it. This weekend we basically wrap Wildlifeless. That's going to be so nice. I know I'm looking forward to moving on (not that it was a bad experience mind you). Josh and Angie brought back a chair from Bisbee (sp?)...Winston's chair. Because of the era, we just can't use any chair. Has to be a specific chair. And this one is fantastic. But dirty. And old. I don't think we're going to use it again after this production is done, so my options are:
(a) We auction it as an authentic prop on Ebay.
(b) I donate it to SCC as a part of their (non-existant) Phoenix film museum.
(c) We burn it and tape the burning for the eventual MOC documentary (most likely).
We can't show the burn footage to the original owners of the chair though, as I am told they were quite fond of it. We'll simply have to send them the movie and tell them their chair will forever exist in a filmic paradise.
I have to write a feature length this semester in school (more to come). In the meantime, here's an un-rewarding and time consuming game to play over the semester: I'll give you my research threads and you can see if you puzzle the story out before I do.
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
11
tWelve
fin
Today was my first class back at SCC in what looks to be my final semester at the school. Unless they suddenly restate the school’s requirements making everything I’ve done up to this point void, I will have associates degrees in both production and (more importantly) screenwriting once this semester is complete. It’s a good time to be in my world…I’m about to sweep the board.
The first class I attended is entitled “Advanced Motion Picture Production”. What is Advanced Production? It is a 16-week class devoted to the mechanics of narrative filmmaking. It’s bent towards teaching students to work in teams and complete short screenplay ideas with the aim of learning more about film production as a whole. So, it really incorporates elements of every element of production (although, in my opinion, its screenwriting discussion has always been the bastard child of the actual screenwriting program).
Before I go any further, let’s add a little history to this semester’s staging of Advanced Production: About a year ago, the teacher who normally taught Advanced Production dropped out. Citing a number of reasons (mainly workload), she left the class to be picked up by any instructor who took a keen interest in it. Following her exit another instructor both took it up and dropped it, in short making the class the official bear of the program. There are several classes in the programs that have stories and myths surrounding them, but Advanced Production is (aside from Boot Camp and Screenwriting 4) the most notorious.
So there was a void. Attempting to fill in the void, the school picked up a new instructor for the school, someone who could take the reins of Advanced Production. What was the reaction? A lot of students (myself included) were pleased. We saw this as a new beginning for the class. We hoped that the new instructor would jettison the easy-going approaches of the previous two instructors and develop an actual curriculum for the class.
Tonight I learned the meaning of the phrase, “be careful what you wish for”.
Not only did this instructor develop an actual curriculum for the class…he revolutionized the way the class was meant to function. He completely threw away everything it was before this point and in the process ruined the plans of a lot of students. Over the weekend I will assess if that includes my plans.
Beforehand, the idea behind the class was that everyone had the chance to come in with an idea and produce it in that class. If it was 5 minutes or 40 minutes, no big deal…just make sure you have the resources and the manpower to get it made. With that in mind, the instructor would basically green light any request that came his/her way, wither that be for equipment, insurance, the studio or any extra perk the school could extend to ensure your production went a little bit smoother.
Tonight, the law of the land was this: there will only be 5 shorts made this semester. They must be under 5 minutes in length, you may not bring in any outside help to make the short happen and films will not go into production until after a 7-week period. This class is Hollywood, and the instructor is the studio…and just like in Hollywood, there are only so many productions that can be made. If your project does not conform to the standards, you’re out of luck.
Period.
If you can imagine the malaise that followed this announcement, then I certainly hope you feel better. In short, this class was going to be offering a comprehensive education like the students wished, but it would no longer be the playground it once was. And I kid you not…the reaction by the students…and the following counter-action by the teacher (who also happens to teach Sheriff Joe’s posse on the side) was the most painful in-class experience I have ever been through. Harrowing. When kids began complaining, it came down to this: “If you want to stay and get your degree, you play by these rules. If not, there’s the door.”
It was uncomfortable.
So now the question is:
Can I use the school’s resources to make White Bread, Filmic and complete Wildlifeless? I believe so, but I need to find out what my boundaries are.
Perhaps more importantly:
Is this guy going to work my butt off, making any side project I might attempt like Filmic out of the question? Let’s face it: if I’m suddenly a part of the “team”, how much time should I expect to devote to the team? Can I just hock some script out and let them all go and film it? That’s terribly rude and anti-social, but it’s how I feel. I don’t want to make another 5 minute short. I want to make MY shorts. I get it…if I can’t tell a story in 5 minutes, then I suck. Most of the kids in that class have made lots of shorts. I’ve participated in over 20. I don’t want to take 5 steps back and make another Outside In.
So basically, I gotta find out if I can still use the school’s resources…and now I need to come up with a new 5 minute idea that I will pitch to the class next week (along with the 20 other students). Oh, and here’s another little twist: it may be my idea, but that doesn’t mean I get to direct it. I wrote it, sure. But I must apply for the director’s position. So I’m sure as heck not throwing one of my golden eggs out to the class and then letting some guy who waltzed in with a Rockstar in his hand and a Fight Club t-shirt on his chest direct it.
The class itself was all terribly amusing. He basically started out by explaining the narrative film to us. And I swear to you…SWEAR…some of it was the Filmic screenplay verbatim. At one point he was even explaining the meaning of Filmic to the class, which was disinterested just like the class in the script. I was vindicated. I questioned if I was on the right pulse with Filmic…if I was even tapping in to the student experience. The second the instructor mentioned the word “filmic”, I KNEW that I got it all right. Hell, I should have just taken a camera with me and filmed the entire first half of my screenplay.
Following that we were taught about pitching and the art of the pitch…a technique he attempted to demystify by explaining that anyone could do it and that you didn’t have to be a screenwriter to tell a story or give a pitch. Ideas come to everyone. No, you don’t get bonus points for having a screenwriting education.
And then we were all given ideas to pitch and I discovered that, SURPRISE SURPRISE, you do get bonus points for knowing how to write and pitch. He will tell you that anyone can do it. But in that class, if you go in with a prior knowledge of screenwriting, you are the king of that smelly little room. Tonight, two students were from the screenwriting program…a friend from a previous class, and myself. And you had better believe that we cleaned their clocks. Here’s how it went: we were divvied up into teams of 5 and expected to give our pitch in front of the class. My team had to sell a screenplay about Hurricane Katrina, starring Harry Conick Jr. No one wanted to pitch in the group. We all hated our idea. I rolled my eyes and said “fine”, went up there and got the green light from the “studio”. Same thing with my friend (only, they had a spectacular idea). My team was pleased. This leads me to realize two extra things:
1. If I come up with a decent enough idea between now and next week, I will be one of those 5 films that gets made. No question. But do I want to? If I mop the floor, what added responsibility am I taking on for myself?
2. These kids are already talking about the chance of not making 5 films, but rather one. If that’s the case (and the instructor has indicated that if we want it to be, it will be) then the class will need a 20-minute idea. They will need someone to pitch it to them. And the entire class will pitch in money to get the idea made. After tonight’s filmic discussion, I believe that I can be the 20-minute film if things get pushed that way. The gamble? In doing so, do I give up my directorial position on the film and do I alienate Matter of Chance from it? If so, then there’s no way I’m bringing Filmic or White Bread anywhere near that class. I direct. Josh shoots. Gabe is IGNACIO. No exceptions.
So all in all, I’m a little worried. If I can’t use the school’s resources to make Filmic and White Bread, then this stinks royally. If I can use them…then great!
What really worries me: dare I let my competitive spirit go in there and sell the heck out of an idea I can’t commit to? I don’t want to bite off more then I can chew. I will participate in the class, but I want to make my shorts.
My interest in feature length screenplays and dramatic narrative has recently led me into episodic structure…something I’ve been pondering over lately due to the reemergence of an old entertainment, and the development of a new one.
First, the new: I’ve really gotten into that television show House over the last few weeks. I mean really into it. Herein lies a show with a ridiculously strong protagonist, unique dramatic mechanism and clean narrative structure…
Allow me to deviate for a moment here and state that while the character of House is brilliant, I credit Hugh Laurie for that portrait. I am sure that some general idea of his persona was conceived at the time of the show’s scripting, but it’s easy to see by the character’s inner life and the gradual comfort each episode gains with the character that the writers' had little hand in the matter. However, I believe the writers to be chiefly responsible for the show’s lean structure.
…Of course, the show has been criticized for its episodic structure, but I find that to be the show’s chief virtue. It’s kind of nice to have a program wherein each episode is self-contained and functional. After trying to keep up with the interlocked plotlines of 24 and Lost, House is a real breather. Episodic also seems to be a rising trend this year. The producers of Lost have recently announced that the third season will be much more serial in its nature than the previous plot-heavy seasons. Good, I say. But to be honest…I can’t wait for more House.
Now for the old: I’ve returned to reading Sherlock Holmes stories recently. To be fair, I used to read Holmes stories all the time; the atmosphere of Doyle’s Victorian world was instrumental in creating Sin of the Opiate, not to mention the dialogue in Wildlifeless. But as to why I started reading these stories again (since those two projects are quickly descending into history) I don’t know.
Oh, wait.
It might be because the Holmesian structure is like clockwork…a classic example of episodic narrative. I should also note that I’ve learned that the characterization of Holmes and the episodic structure of these stories play a key influence for House. Ah yes, the picture is complete.
In a final note for this rather indulgent blog entry: I picked up my reading with “The Adventure of the Empty House”, the first story after Holmes’ “death” in “The Final Problem”. While I found “The Final Problem” to be a rather flat and heartless story (you could tell that Doyle was just sick of the character by then), “The Adventure of the Empty House” was thrilling. Easily one of the best Holmes stories. Wherein Doyle had given up on trying to create a Victorian London with all sorts of vibrancy and uniqueness in “Problem”, “Empty House” has him painting a stunning, dangerous world nearly rivaling that of “The Sign of Four”. Most notable? The villain in this short work is a retired big game hunter! I wish I had read this story before Wildlifeless…and yet, it was extremely gratifying to note that the big game hunter herein was depicted much in the same grandiose fashion that we have depicted ours.
Alright, so a lot of idiots throw together rap crap, and this isn't a whole lot better, but I thought I'd share. It's not too shabby for throwin' it down quick, with Matt tossing up the very first thought of a blueberry pie theme. Matt Turner put down a sample on Pro Tools, he layed down a bass line, and I tapped some keys. And what I dub, The Blueberry Hill Gang (Matt, Brock, Jacob Dutiel, and myself), spit up lyrics. We messed around with Brock's voice and liked his part so much, we ended the rap with it. Download - Blueberry Pie.
One night I rolled up in my benz to the cafe with some friendz
we was feelin' the hunger, night wasn't gettin any younger
yelled out to the waitress "yo, woman, make us some pie!"
She says "what kind?" We yell out, "a blueberry, a blueberry, blueberry, a blueberry pie
Yo, cold-check, not any pastry will do
it's gotta be a pie and it's gotta be blue
blue pie? You smokin' the crack?
No, blueberry! So, get off my back!
(Matt)
I said blueberry pie, it taste delicious
when grandma cooks it, we don't have to do the dishes
because we lick the plates clean, you know what I mean?
as soon as we're done, it's time for ice cream
rasberries, cherries, forget 'em, all we wants blueberries
all we wants blueberries
(Brock)
Why, oh, why? Blueberry pie, on my mind
eatin' all my time
something scary, it's so hairy
lookin' for Matt's fridge, gotta binge
Gabe's comin' ova, with leftova
my, oh, my, hits mouth so sweet
I swear I could die, blueberry pie, pie, pie
(Jacob, lyrics by Matt)
When I wake I ache for blueberry pie to get baked
so I wait and watch the oven
try to take my pie and a ninja kick is comin'
kick, you slip, my karate chop's so swift
with fury, take you down while I eat blueberries
Man oh man...there hasn't been a post 'round these parts in forever. That I aim to fix, right now.
Earlier this evening I created a costume list for Filmic's major players. So far, the actors being provided with costumes are Vincent (who will look very Lawrence of Arabia meets Thom Yorke), Ignacio (a cheep character since all he really wears are camo pants), the Muslim (who is turning out to be a direct parody of Ali's in Wildlifeless...hence, a direct commentary on myself), and the two Marines (who have the most wardrobe out of ANY character in the script. If I can get all the items I want for these guys, they will just look insane).
I also tried to revise some of the Filmic budget, getting in as many numbers as I possibly could. So far we're golden on the makeup department, almost golden on the props and almost golden on the grip. After working on the budget for a bit, I chatted with a friend from school (Brad) who is going to start looking for the studio location. In the screenplay there is a studio location that is described as a white void, similar to locations in THX/The Matrix. I hope to have that location locked soon.
Once the budget is locked I shall begin my directorial notes...
That is all.
This post is for Josh, who just had his appendix out. Feel better dude!
When I first saw The Village in a theater, I walked out feeling empty, and disappointed. To me, it was Shyamalan’s first movie to fall under the bar which he set so high. Even short of Signs, which had the ridiculous notion that H2O-vulnerable Aliens would try to invade a water-logged planet. Part of it for me was that he built the tension so high up to a point that, it felt like a bomb would go off, but instead, the fuse fizzled out. With that, I’m not saying the movie was horrible, because he did a fantastic job of building up the tension. However, the wound runs deeper.
I hadn’t seen The Village again until quite some time after it had been on DVD. In fact, I believe it was early this year. I even came to dislike The Village, and couldn’t fully understand why. It couldn’t just be that the ending had little payoff for me. C’mon, the villagers actually living in modern times wasn’t exactly something to fall out of your seat over. At least, not for me. So, with much time to cool down and reopen the mind, I rented it, trying to have no expectations. Additionally, I felt that knowing the ending, I could catch the finer points of the movie. That turned out to be the opposite.
What I discovered with my second viewing of The Village, outright offended me. And that, was Manoj’s cold, outright manipulation of his audience to get his surprise. This time it wasn’t the means of a genius screenplay. It could’ve been, but Night seemed to fear he would give away too much. So much so, that he resorted to manipulation in the worst of ways. And I say, shame on you Shyamalan!
The first manipulation was in the opening scene. The camera focuses in, quite poignantly, on a tombstone dating in the late 1800s. I couldn’t help but feel that was a cheap-shot. In abscense of story to draw our attention away, he outright misleads. Sure, the villagers want to live in a more simple time, but what does the date matter? I’m sure they would say that it helps take their minds off the time they’re hiding from. But really, does it make much difference?
Quite ridiculous, but necessary in order to keep the story afloat from the ending, is their manner of speech. Really, would one go through so much trouble to make up dialect, or attempt dialect of another era? However, if they spoke like we do today, it would give the ending away. With that in mind, it was wise of him to have the characters speak in a way they thought it would have been.
Another low-blow was Manoj’s use of sound, in particular, that of the creatures. No human in a creature suit could make such a loud, fearsome noise. Some might say it was the interpretation of what the frightened villagers heard. I don’t care how scared I was, I couldn’t imagine that. Go ahead, pop in the DVD and listen to what I’m talking about.
One thing that blew my mind the most, was that Night cut a scene from the version that showed in theaters. It was completely missing from the DVD, even from the deleted scenes. It was a scene between Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Mrs. Clack (Cherry Jones). Mrs. Clack was relating her negative experience from the outside towns, something that happened in an alley. Ivy then quipped “What’s an alley?” It was the scene that tipped me to the ending, and perhaps enough people that Shyamalan felt it was too revealing (after the fact) and removed it for the DVD release. It’s not the first time further editing has been done for a DVD release, but the fact that he didn’t even mention it in his deleted scenes portion, showed prideful arrogance to me. It was as if he didn’t want to admit to a mistake, yet, it wasn’t a mistake, it was just a clue that more people caught onto than he wanted.
He was at the point where he should have made a movie that didn’t need a surprise ending. It felt as if he worried too much about hiding his “surprise ending” that he had to force it…force it with lies! That was a little extreme, but he should’ve tried to write outside his bubble, or direct something that someone else wrote. Unfortunately, trying to write outside his bubble produced Lady in the Water, a jarring mess.
To end on a positive note, I loved everything else about The Village – the setting, the cinematography, the mood, the tension, the acting (except his). All other aspects were there. That is why he needs to direct something where he doesn’t have himself all wrapped around the story, because he has the raw talent.
It is with a tinge of sadness that I removed the cards, structure notes and paradigm diagram for Filmic from my writing cork-board today. The project is clearly finished. While the tremendous task of planning out the shots, budget and locations lies ahead, I feel that any difficulty in bringing this project to the fore has now been eliminated. Despite my past and current problems in organizing and creating movies, the problems in bringing the project to fruition always lies in the completion of the script. Along with most of the fun. In that respect, Syd Field always likened writing projects to personal relationships. Even when the relationship is well past its expiration, writers are always hesitant to let them go. Writing a screenplay, even a short one, is a grand journey. It's always sad to see the ending.
At any rate, I am also happy to be done with it. I have to work like mad in the next two weeks to get the budget and schedule together so that I can begin pushing a proposal. I'll save my directorial interpretation of the script for after the busy-work of producing...that way I have something fun to look forward to.
Next, I must attempt to elevate the screenplay for Everlast. With Filmic written, Wildlifeless nearing completion all-together, and White Bread appearing to be the next work on the horizon, Everlast has been revealed to be the armature’s work it is. In comparison to Wildlifeless' mock-suspense, Everlast is of a somewhat lowbrow persuasion. In comparison to Filmic, a screenplay that pulls back the curtain on the establishment known as film school, Everlast is laughable. Strengthening that screenplay is my next short project.
Maybe haps later I will recount our showing at the Cinema Lounge. It could have been a near disaster...but thankfully, the evening turned out quite well. It was a pleasure to be able to view other filmmaker's work, and chat with them at length about it. I'll offer more on this subject soon.
Getting ready for the pre-production budgeting, casting, storyboard work. Putting this (hopefully) final draft together is like putting together a mix tape.
Current scene order (make what sense of this you will):
1. The Squib
2. Vincent Shanks Runt
3. Tower Explosion
4. Leaving Baghdad/Entering Phoenix
5. Changing film
6. The Gas Mask Scene
7. Mario's letter
8. Camera jam
9. Planning explosion
10. Showdown
11. Meeting the filmmakers/Vincent's lightmeter
Most classes devoted to a historical study of film will inform you that the 70’s were a time of rebellion and liberalism in the cinema. European influences are noted as having infiltrated the studio system at this time, and gritty portrayals of sex, drugs and general dissatisfaction with authority prevailed. What most film studies fail to properly illuminate however, possibly due to its gaudy nature, is the rise of the franchise.
In the late 70’s, franchise films began to emerge. Franchises included films such as Jaws, Rocky and the perennial Star Wars. These films lacked the revolutionary mentality of earlier work, instead focusing on a much simpler message. That message more or less surmised that the world was a bad place and that there were bad people within it. But it also noted that not everything was bad. There were good people as well, heroes who would fight for the fulfillment of justice. Not least amongst these “positive message” franchises, was Superman.
Directed in 1978 by Richard Donner, Superman was stylized, bright and positively brimming with hope. This film served as the template for future comic book movies and was eventually hailed by M. Night Shyamalan as the finest comic book movie ever produced. Now, twenty-eight years later, Bryan Singer has surmised, with Superman Returns, “Why improve upon an already perfect formula?”
Superman Returns serves as the sequel to Superman II. Picking up after Superman left to find the remains of the planet Krypton, “Returns” unfolds around his attempt to rekindle the life he once led – both as Clark Kent and as Superman. Interestingly enough, Singer gives us a fantastic scene early on in the film with Clark watching the news at his adoptive parents’ home. In this unique scene, Singer illustrates how the world has changed since Superman’s departure. Wars rage in the Middle East. Violence is everywhere. People seem to have forgotten about extraordinary heroes. Superman, in short, seems trivial.
On top of that, Superman’s gal-pal, Lois Lane, seems to have moved on with her life. In fact, Lois is on the cusp of being awarded the Pulitzer Prize…for an article entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”. And so begins Superman Returns – a film about Clark trying to reclaim all that he left behind, not the least of which is Lois’ heart.
It’s an intriguing premise, made even more fun when Superman makes his reappearance during a climatic airplane rescue. At the apex of this sequence (easily one of the finest Singer has ever directed) Superman comes face to face with Lois for the first time since his departure. It’s a funny, breathless moment that ends on a tremendous upward note. Following this sequence, the film’s cat and mouse game between Superman and Lois begins. And so does the story’s problems.
Before delving into said problems however, it’s appropriate to note an established truth about screenwriting and storytelling in general. It is that every character has something they want to win, gain or get. Even the lesser characters have such needs and wants.
In Superman Returns, the film’s populace largely welcomes Superman’s reemergence; so naturally, Clark’s objective becomes an attempt to woo back the far less receptive Lois. Lex Luthor (played by a vicious Kevin Spacey) wants to get his revenge on Superman, who robbed him of everything he had before his departure. And Lois, perhaps the most important character of the film in my estimation, wants to have Superman, despite her surface level “forget you” mentality. That being established, it is easy to understand the film’s failure.
Superman spends the majority of the film pulling off dazzling feats, but when he attempts to renew his relationship with Lois (a relationship all of the characters in the film readily acknowledge), she rebukes him. While this is generally the fun of any romantic comedy, the satisfaction comes in the joining of the couple. Superman Returns really has no such moments of satisfaction, no such little victories for our hero.
Rubbing salt in the wound is the fact that Lois now has a kid, which may very well be Superman’s. Heck, in the movie’s backstory she even wrote a suggestive article about it (I Spent a Night With Superman). But for some reason, when these two characters come together, they can’t help but share anything more then awkward, stilted dialogue. For two characters who shared a questionable, yet admittedly close past, they sure have a whole lot of nothing to say to one another. Sure, when two people really like one another, there is some level of awkwardness -- during courtship. But when the film implies that Lois and Superman have shared more then awkward chitchat, the work comes into question.
I’d blame this on the film’s actors, Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, but they both have shining moments in the movie not involving their interaction with one another. Either they lacked chemistry, or Singer and his team of screenwriters had no idea how to approach the heated backstory of Lois and Superman. I’d venture that a lack of chemistry amplified an issue that was already manufactured in the construction of the story.
And then we have Lex Luthor’s story-arc, which is so distracting to the film’s core story, that any fun about it is lost. Lex Luthor is a great character, and Spacey brings a certain pettiness and malice to his interpretation, but this is Superman Returns, not Lex’s Big Adventure.
Singer also seems needlessly compelled to outline Lex’s “evil plan” step by step…which really is a stupid plan when you think about it. More compelling is the blind hatred of Luthor’s dramatic need: mess up Superman. Bad. Singer missed a golden opportunity with Luthor. Because Spacey brings such violence to the character, Lex’s arc would have been even better if we had seen his energies spent on the degrading and destruction of Superman – not some half-cooked real-estate scheme. And as a bonus you’d get Lois’ conflict, since she already degrades Superman herself. Fracturing the film’s narrative even further is Lois’ kid, which is really more distracting than anything.
Despite these problems, Superman Returns does seem to get quite a bit right. As mentioned earlier, this is meant to be a sequel to the previous Superman films. Singer doesn’t let that fact slide. Instead, he waves it in our faces by opening the film with streaking blue “laser credits” and the iconic John Williams score.
Brandon Routh’s performance, nothing more then an uncanny impersonation of Christopher Reeves, is geeky, stumbling and outright playful. And Spacey as Luthor is absolutely chilling in his darker moments.
On top of that, Singer seems to be at the height of his directorial technique. The aforementioned airplane rescue is just one of several examples in this film pointing to his masterful command of editing and camerawork. And despite a somewhat unsatisfactory ending, this team of filmmakers has succeeded in creating a universe that could easily sustain another film. The characters and their histories with one another are certainly interesting, if not properly explored.
Ultimately, the problem is, we really shouldn’t need another film. Films aren’t installment plans – Superman set out to win the heart of Lois Lane. While he does nudge us in the right direction, Singer fails to hint at the outcome. That, coupled with the fact that there aren’t nearly enough inspiring moments in the movie like the airplane rescue, makes Superman Returns feel like a brilliant failure.
But in the hands of a director as capable as Singer, this failure can only be seen as sabotage, self-mutilation in a deliberate attempt to build his next franchise. A shame. I would have rather had one extraordinarily satisfying film, rather than 3 good ones.
Well, now that the deed is done (or, the difficult part of it anyway), we might as well talk about it at some great length. After a few months of preparation, Matter of Chance shot the majority of Wildlifeless on June 30th at Balboa Park in San Diego. It was a long and harrowing day, one that resulted in my (and I believe to some extent, the rest of the crew’s) renewed doubt towards any filmmaking skill that I may possess.
First, let’s get the messy business out of the way. The day before the shoot, we lost our main actor. This was deeply devastating to me since I had cast the actor months in advance and spent some time building this film’s character with him. Moreover, I was somewhat appreciative of his application of the Method and his (seeming) interest in the story.
The morning of our departure for San Diego however, I made a fatal communication error with him, which resulted in his departure from the project. Needless to say, this event really put a bleak cloud over the weekend. I blame myself for amplifying that cloud however, as at that point, I think I stopped appearing to care about the movie.
Thankfully, Josh came to the rescue with the suggestion that we contact Joe Garcia (his father in-law and the guy who played Pierro in Leonardo) for the part. Joe, while not an actor by reputation, seemed to take direction well and most certainly looked the part. He didn’t have the advantage of training and 3-months of character development behind him, but he did get the general idea. And of course, he had worked with us before, so any misstep in communication I made with him would be shrugged off as a normal hiccup in the daily production routine. With the new actor onboard, the Matter of Chance team set-off for San Diego.
That night I slept fitfully. Sharing a hotel room with Joe, I opted to sleep on the living-room couch and let him have the bedroom all to himself. This was a good idea, because I tossed and turned for most of the night. Despite trying to fantasize of a life much simpler as I lay there on that couch, I often returned to depressed thoughts of how my little opus had begun. I woke up at 5:30 and decided to take a walk around the hotel after a shower.
San Diego was really amazing when I stepped outside. It was chilly, but bustling with activity. I could see gigantic cranes off in the distance, as well as ships and the bridge leading towards Coronado (where I desperately wanted to go). I must admit, I considered simply walking away and enjoying the city that day. But I couldn’t bring myself to do something like that…especially since we had put so much preparation and money into this project. It just wouldn’t have been honorable. And besides, I needed a ride home.
After Josh and I roused the crew, we headed over to Balboa to walk through the park with the plant supervisor and the film commission’s employee.
Surprisingly, we were given free reign to do pretty much anything we wanted in the park. There was the general rule of “don’t cut down any major plants”, but aside from that, we could do whatever we had to in order to get our shot. As long as we left the park in good order, the city of San Diego was happy with our arrival. I found this welcoming spirit to be deeply heartening. If it hadn’t been such a tremendous venture for such a small production company as ours…I would film in San Diego more often. Without a doubt, it will always be my second home and base of operations.
Josh and I brought the cast to the park next. While Angie put the makeup on Alexander Khan and Joe - Josh, Alex and Gabe set up the first shot – a sweeping single take of the jungle as Winston and Ali emerge from their tent.
This shot actually had the most potential out of all the visuals in the film. If pulled off right, it would be quite impressive, even by most professional’s standards. Unfortunately, we didn’t pull it off quite as well as I would have liked. The main reason for this lies in a missing screw to the fluid-tripod’s head. We needed that screw in order to get the camera on the tripod head. But, because we were missing it, we had to resort to using another head on the tripod…one far less slick. What was supposed to be a very smooth, gliding shot, now has many bumps. Even the best of takes is questionable in a few key areas. I don’t blame anyone for this problem – but I would like to avoid it in the future.
The rest of the morning’s shots were more or less tainted by this issue. While I don’t think the group was daunted by this problem (aside from Gabe, the rest probably didn’t even realize what was going on), Josh and I were profoundly depressed. During the lunch break, we both admitted as much. I also admitted that while everyone was working incredibly hard, we were severely understaffed. Two to three more people would have eased the shooting tremendously. I think we would have been able to move faster and get more takes in if we had a few extra staffers. Alas, we made do with our small, but faithful crew.
The morning’s shots involved Winston and Ali’s first encounter with the tiger along a jungle pathway. The majority of the film’s complex shots lied in this sequence, including our first use of the crane. While the cast broke for lunch, the crew set to work preparing the crane for the rest of the sequence. I took this time to look over my director’s notes and ensure that I was getting every nuance I had written about. Josh, Gabe and Alex tested the first crane shot once, and one of Josh’s connections in San Diego dropped by to talk digital with him. Finally, the cast returned with sandwiches for the crew, which we ate as we worked.
The afternoon’s shots blew by at a much quicker pace. Even the crane shots went by fairly quickly and without much gripe. There are a few shots that I would have liked executed better, but I am largely happy with this work.
After we put the crane away, Josh and I switched to a radical change in cinematography style. This new style, suggested in my notes on the film’s final portion and developed by Josh, involved handheld camerawork, extremely close angles and a fast shutter speed. I am sure that Josh is cringing at this paragraph, because the techniques are in fact a little more intricate then I have described, but you get the general picture. This portion of the film was deeply radical and very stylistically different. It was also incredibly easy to film. While the Spielbergian camerawork took us several hours to complete, I doubt that this stuff took more than 45 minutes. It was also very fun to shoot as well for Josh, Joe and I. Included in this set was the film’s final sequence – a showdown between Joe’s character and the film’s antagonistic force. I won’t expound upon the details of this sequence as it is quite crucial to the surprise of the film’s finale, but the filming went well. It was especially interesting to shot this part because we were staging it in a secluded area of the park that we didn’t expect to get permission to shoot in.
Following this, we filmed a few final scenes in Day for Night with Alexander Khan. When those scenes were in the can, Alex rushed Alexander and his mother Lisa Khan to the airport (just in time for their flight!). Meanwhile, the rest of us began the long task of cleanup.
As Josh and I put away the camera equipment, I apologized to Josh. In my estimation, the day had gone quite badly. I always feel that each film I make unfolds itself as a crisis situation, a feeling that can mainly be attributed to my larger ambitions and lacking manpower. In short, I am making and planning movies that should really have crews of 25…instead of 8. Josh shrugged this apology off however. I think he was too tired to view the day as a failure. And yet, I could sense some depression in his attitude. The question of whether that was genuine or projected upon him by myself, I do not wish answered.
It was frantic. It was hell. It chewed us up and spit us out. I don’t feel like I bonded with anybody because I was so worried about the project’s execution, and I felt like a criminal for doing this to everyone. What’s worse is that I’m not particularly strong, so whatever grunt work there was, I wasn’t fit for. Added to that was fact that I still blamed myself for the previous misfire with the film’s original actor. I wasn’t displeased with Joe’s presence (actually, I was quite uplifted by his attitude), but I felt incompetent for tarnishing earlier work. I blame myself for that.
And yet, I have to remember filmic law. Bad things happen on film sets. A plethora of things can, and usually will, go wrong. I learned that from The Subject. The problem is that we don’t have the money or manpower to drown out such mistakes. And so, we on the set of Wildlifeless had to live with them.
That is why, on the way home, I felt like I had failed. I didn’t believe that Josh or Alex, or Gabe or anyone else on the set had failed. I knew that I had.
The next morning, Josh e-mailed me and told me that he had looked at the footage and that it was great. I was somewhat pleased by this, but I had to see for myself.
After watching the footage on Sunday, I was both happy and depressed. It all looks really neat…and it also looks really rough. I felt that there was a good film lying in there somewhere. We just needed to dig it out.
This suspicion was confirmed when Josh and I set to cutting the trailer. Really, with some quick correction and editing, the footage we picked for the trailer glowed. It really is fantastic stuff. Suspenseful too. We must have watched the trailer 10 times and laughed each time. Not only that, but I also sensed a kind of tone and style in the footage that was reminiscent of my other work. I wasn’t aware of such a thing in pre-production, but there seems to be a flavor in the work that implies a certain sensibility. I also think that Josh has been given a powerful set of new tools (Dolly + Crane) to use in the next few films. Wildlifeless was simply the gateway. Just don't get ready to call me the new Kipling yet.
We still have a few things to shoot before we can complete the picture. Alexander Khan and his family are leaving the states for a month…and Josh and I are probably going to wait to film the rest of the movie until they get back. By that time, I will have access to SCC’s studios. A month seems like a terribly long time…but we’ll have the filming finished mid-August and the movie should be ready by September. I think Josh and I want it to tour the festival circuit anyway, so the extra wait really isn’t such a bad thing considering the fact that this film will be making the rounds until summer 2007.
So, when will you get a chance to view the trailer, dear reader?
In the next two weeks at a special screening. Where? I cannot say. But, if you keep yourself tapped in to the locale Phoenix film scene, you can probably guess where and when the Wildlifeless trailer will be unleashed.
We had the Wildlifeless rehearsal with the actors on Monday. How did it go? Well, I think. Loring Olk, the actor playing Winston, continues to impress and amaze me. I find him to be very easy to direct, attentive and almost always imaginative in providing solutions. And how about the young actor, Alexander Khan? How am I doing in my direction of him?
Not as well. Now, that's not to say that he's giving a bad performance or that the film will drag with him. Far from it. He plays the character well and he interacts with Loring in new and interesting ways. What I mean to say is that I am learning a lot about the difficulty of directing children.
And so...I sought out some advice to make up for my shortcomings in this area. Thankfully, I learned some fundamental truths about child acting and directing children. Many of these truths basically explain why I have been having such a difficult time in this area.
First and foremost, children do not respond well to the method (my primary tool in directing Loring). Why? The Method relies upon life experience in creating its magic...and child actors, despite their attempts to please, have no life experiences to draw upon when given direction associated with The Method. I hadn't given Alexander much direction with relation to this acting principle, but some of my suggestions had been tinged with advice that stems from Method. I'll have to correct this.
Secondly, children, unlike many adult actors, generally need to be given concrete emotions to act towards. That doesn't mean I can start result directing with this kid...but I am going to have to *simplify* my approach.
Finally, I just don't relate to kids. I gotta find some common ground with this guy.
Angie suggested we go and see him perform in a play. This is probably a good idea. Anyway, it'll work out...I just need to use a different approach to get the most potential out of him.
Hey, later on next week I just might post a screenplay for a new project entitled "White Bread". I think I'm going to clean it up a little bit first. If we decide to film something after WIldlifeless and before Filmic, maybe we'll shoot this story.
Several years ago (we’re talking at least four) Parker and I used to collect action figures. I mean; we collected action figures like bad habits. We had shelves of them, boxes of them. And it wasn’t just of a particular type, like say…Star Wars (Star Wars was simply the type that got the most prominence on our shelves). It was pretty much anything sculpted in likeness of our favorite film, anime and comic book characters. If they had made The Graduate action figures, I would have rejoiced in the irony of being able to hold it while saying “plastics!” Heck, at one point, I think Parker was even talking about traveling to Italy and learning to sculpt so a famous toy firm would hire him.
After a while of course, that habit broke down. The last time he or I purchased any figures was when Star Wars Episode III came out last year…and that was kind of like a “last hurrah” binge. Figures occupy very little space in a world now overrun with other, more academic pursuits. And yet, I might have to make an exception in the months to come.
I haven’t mentioned it before, but I’m a big fan of the television series Lost (no real surprise there – seems everybody is these days). Alex got me hooked on this series when he invited me over to watch a few episodes of season 1 on DVD. I ended up going home with the DVD that day, promising I would return it in a week or two. I think I ended up watching the episodes in a matter of days and returning it by the end of the week. Sensing this interest in the show, McFarlane toys seems to have made a series of action figures based around Lost.
Now, what exactly is McFarlane Toys? I have to conjure up “action figure geek” Brock to answer this question: McFarlane Toys is only the coolest action figure company around. Using photo-realistic techniques in conjuncture with a team of insanely precise sculptors, McFarlane has created toys based upon such properties as the X-Files, the Beatles and Where the Wild Things Are. A more recent venture was the company’s action figures based off of the film Napoleon Dynamite. They’re the best company to get the idea that, hey; some Lost figures would be pretty cool.
Ultimately, if I pick up one of these crazy things, they’ll be something neat to have around the Matter of Chance office (I.E. my computer desk).
P.S. Josh – I bought a couple of episodes of Season 2 on iTunes. And, I ended up breaking down and watching the Season 2 finale. I guess I just couldn’t wait for the DVD, especially since they start Season 3 the moment fall begins.
I must admit, I am a little bit sorry to hear the recent news about Peter Weir and Johnny Depp’s project, Shantaram.
Peter Weir has always been one of my personal favorite directors, although I didn’t really get into him until film school. A few years back he did Master and Commander, one of the best sea-fairing movies ever, in my honest opinion, and since then, I’ve been intrigued by future possibilities and old projects.
Shantaram caught my eye because it was his first collaboration with Johnny Depp. Weir has done good things with actors before (Paul Bettany in Master and Commander is worth the viewing alone), and I figured that Depp’s “weirdness” would be an interesting new energy for him to try and harness. Moreover, Shantaram is about a drug addict who becomes a doctor in the slums of India, eventually moving on to defend Afghanistan against invading Russians. So, basically, it's one of those films that combines every single element I’ve ever written about or will write about. Of course I’m going to be intrigued.
Sadly, they had differing views about how the material should be handled. I can’t say whose interpretation would have been better as they both seem to have a keen eye about these things…but I’d venture to say that Weir’s take might have been gold. Ah well.
It’s still an intriguing idea and could make for a fine film…but the producers (I’m looking at you Depp) need to find a director with as much vision and integrity as Weir.
-Latest draft of Filmic...Check
-Latest draft of Sin of the Opiate...Check
-Copy of The Madcap Armament...Check
-Notes for the above works...Check
-Flashdrive holding copies of everything above...Check
-iPod...Check
I'm off!
I'll be out of town until Saturday. Where shall I be? I'll be spending my time in Cali, which I'm actually not looking forward to since I'll be in San Diego a few weeks later shooting Wildlifeless. But, oh well, no biggie. Here's to getting plenty of work done.
(Josh's post at TA reminded me to write this.)
If there has been anything blatantly ostracized in the last two Mission Impossible films, it has been their examples of villainy. I point you to Exhibit A: Jon Voight. Aside from being completely non-existent in the first film, he is barely threatening when finally revealed. Worse, the film never establishes a leering threat or sense of danger in lieu of Voight. This isn’t nearly as bad as the second film, when there was an onscreen villain: Dougray Scott. In establishing his villainy, John Woo and the film’s writers made the bold choice of using every bad-guy trademark in the book. Of course, it didn’t help that Scott appeared completely non-threatening and disinterested in his performance.
Sadly, there was never any doubt that Cruise’s character, Ethan Hunt, would prevail over these largely unintelligent, boorish representations of espionage villainy.
Now, we cut to Exhibit C, the intro of Mission Impossible III:
No immediate title sequence, no TOM CRUISE in big bold letters (immediately)…And no operatic music. It opens on Hunt strapped to a chair. Beaten, bleeding…with tears in his eyes. In front of him sits his wife, also tied to a chair. Duct tape muffles her sobs of distress. Standing over her with a gun…is Philip Seymour Hoffman.
“You have 10 seconds to give me the Rabbit’s Foot, or I shoot her.”
For the record, bad guys count to ten all the time. But they never shoot the girl. In fact, they hardly ever finish counting to ten. What’s more, the previous two films established bad guys in this series as being threatening, but never really serious. Hoffman’s character, Owen Davian? He is serious. He does get to ten.
And then he shoots her.
This is an incredible contrast to the opening of the previous two films. It is also a commentary on the talent behind this installment, J.J. Abrams. Instead of opening with an edgy rock-climbing sequence or a flashy sting-operation, Abrams decides to open the film in close-quarters with a heated interplay between the good-guy and the bad-guy. Despite the lack of stunts or loud atmosphere, this opening is a thousand times more enthralling than the introductory sequences of the previous two. And this is a standard of Abrams’ that stands true throughout most of the film in fact.
Abrams, noted for his work on the television series Lost, understands what draws an audience in. He knows that you simply cannot pack on mindless action sequence after mindless action sequence; an audience demands well-written, well-performed characters. Abrams used this to his advantage on Lost, and in Mission Impossible III he shows that he still uses character as his strong suit.
Now, that isn’t to say that in choosing character over action, Abrams completely nullifies the thrills demanded of a big-budget action flick. On the contrary - In choosing character, he amplifies these thrills. Surprisingly, Abrams action sequences are largely the same as those featured in the previous two films (I’ll even say that some of them are not as distinctive or iconic as the last two’s). But they are far more effective because they involve characters we care for. The end result is all the more crushing, all the more harrowing, impressive CGI or not. This movie underscores Abrams’ value in character.
And Hoffman’s Davian and Cruise’s Hunt are simply the prime examples of Abrams’ interest in character. 
An example: Hunt, in the last two films, was a jet set, standoffish super-spy who loved the thrill of his work. So, you know…he was basically Tom Cruise. Abrams’ Hunt however, has settled down. He can still take on the world and then-some, but he’d much rather grab a bag of ice, put on a record and spend the rest of the evening at home with his girl (Notice the singular on girl, not the plural.)
Beyond that, Abrams allows Cruise’s performance a sense of weary acceptance at the impossible stunts unfolding before him. Woo’s Hunt treated the stunts and near death experiences as an extreme sport. Abrams’ Hunt, on the other hand, approaches the whole ordeal with a rushed sigh.
Regarding Davian, Hoffman plays the character minus the quiet intensity and hollow threats of his predecessors. He is not in control of his emotions, he doesn’t like being put on the defensive, and he has absolutely no qualms about hunting people down (brutally) to get what he wants. And that is what is so delightful about his character – he has something he wants. And since he has a need that stands in stark contrast to Hunt’s, the movie has plenty of time to unfold some fun sequences around their rivalry (a rivalry that Davian beautifully takes straight into Hunt’s personal life).
With two tightly written characters, it’s even more of a treat to be able to say that the whole film is pretty tight. There’s nothing extraneous about the whole ordeal, nothing breathless. It moves quickly, with razor precision, but also takes time to connect us to the protagonist. It’s beautiful to look at, never takes itself too seriously, and rarely spoon-feeds itself to the audience. Sure, it’s not brain-food, but the creative team understands that it doesn’t have to be. Abrams even manages to sneak a MacGuffin into the film…a true tip of the hat to the grand master.
One of my minor quibbles about the film is something I heard in another review: it’s a shame this is the third one and not the first.
This band is 5x better live than on record! Every band should be, but alas, sometimes it's the contrary. If you have the chance to see them, go! I doubt they'll disappoint.
Brock and I traversed to Modified Arts, to gain entry rights, as we've had the previous misfortunes of sellouts. I researched the opening bands, Peachcake, and Foreign Born, beforehand. After determining from their MySpace page that Peachcake's core fanbase consists of 17-year olds who love to bounce to their jumpy, synth-pop, we decided to skip out and patronize Carly's, which resides in the spot previously occupied by The Paisley Violin. There we partook of some tasty, exotic beers.
Feeling a new sense of air, we headed back in time to catch Foreign Born. They were described as having a 70s guitar sound. I only caught a hint of that, but they were pretty fresh and interesting to listen too.
Then, there was Aloha. I already had an expectation of greatness from word of mouth, and their performance on the Michigan Fest DVD that I own. They exceeded that expectation. They're a four-piece and aside from the usual guitar, bass, and drums, they had two keyboards, a vibraphone (the iconic piece of Aloha), and an additional floor tom located near the vibraphonist.
They have a few songs where the drummer becomes the focus, pounding out fast, tight and alternating rhythms. He was often accompanied by a relentless beating of the floor tom with mallets (or whatever you call the drumsticks with big, fuzzy ends). Some songs had no guitar, with both keyboards dueting. The bass was melodic, in synch with some drum highlights. It was contagiously energetic.
Tuesday afternoon: a post-war haze of boredom that I must live through now that school is over. Yesterday, at 9:30 A.M., I effectively put the last bullet in the Spring Semester by completing a finals test for Radio and TV. Sure, I still have two more classes tomorrow – screenwriting and portfolio editing, but by now, the teeth are gone…with my final trailer complete and the first act of Sin of the Opiate printed, the cat has effectively been de-clawed.
So what now? To be honest, I’m not perfectly sure. A couple of things flitter around my brain (a mind that has since lost everything through a drain opened after that test). These flitters include the need to rehearse the cast of Wildlifeless, make sure all of that SAG stuff is squared away, the writing of a pre-production and budget plan for Filmic, and the second and third acts of my aforementioned screenplay.
These are all things that must be done…but I highly doubt that I’m going to get around to doing them before Thursday.
Why?
Because at this point, I’m out of the scope. The hurricane has passed. And I survived. I mean really, literally, survived. I spent classes this semester with honors students who insisted that they were “rock stars” who “kicked major butt” and could fly grades higher then any Japanese Zero to blast off from the face of this earth. And just days before the end, I sat next to these honors students in class as their façade melted and their final projects burned out like defective firecrackers. Kids asked for incompletes. Kids seven years older then me. And I walked away from that firebomb.
Last semester, in making The Subject, I weathered a storm of bad production and unfortunate mishaps. This semester, all that was bad and that happened to me, reversed and sunk its teeth into the students of every class I attended. And I walked away unfazed. I don’t believe in cosmic switches or rubber-band effects, but I do believe in escaping the lion’s den. And that’s that.
Now, boredom creeps through this house, hanging like that sweaty thickness of air that has also descended upon the valley as of late. It’s going to be poignant this year. It’s going to be thick. But at the same time, I kind of welcome this boredom. Sure, there are things I will have to do. A couple of movies have to be made. But I feel that I have earned the right to be bored. A novel concept I struggle with is that I feel the need to constantly be doing something. Progress must be made, in school or in an MOC project or in some aspect of my life. For now, I feel like I have earned the ability to sit around, with nothing to do. A screen is in front of my face, and a keyboard at my hands. School has ended, and now I have the right to be here, blogging about useless nonsense and pet-projects, Jackie Carol running in the background. I have the right to collect meaningless bits of information, conundrums, and post them for what they’re worth.
That being said, here’s to nonsensical stream of consciousness at 1:53 on a Phoenix afternoon. The valley is silent minus Josh and Angie. The house molasses.
Minor notes before this rambling ends:
1. I anxiously await this new album…and let me comment that the art is just fantastic.
2. Shutter-ghosting – a new effect I’ve learned about by reading the cinematography forums, as suggested by Joshua J. Provost. In learning about various cinematography techniques for Filmic, I’ve come across some fascinating stuff. Here’s the general summary of Saving Private Ryan: They shot at 24 fps (normal speed) but with a 45 degree shutter angle, making the motion very crisp and jerky. The prints used a 100 IR level of ENR silver retention processing (Josh, you told me this one). The negative was sometimes flashed; the lenses had their anti-reflection coatings removed for more flaring, and some shots were made with a camera with an out-of-sync shutter so that bright highlights were streaking vertically in the frame. The tungsten-balanced film (EXR 200T) was push-processed and instead of a normal 85 filter, they used a half-correction (81EF) for a cooler look.
3. Scottsdale students should check out a new issue of The Vortex for an essay entitled “Murphy Strikes Back”, consequently about the very same thing that plagued my pathetic student body, as well as a short story entitled “The Great American War Flick”. I’d post both of these items on “Leonard Hughes”, but that would be inappropriate and unfair. Just get the magazine (I think its free for crying out loud), because there are lots of other great stories and works in there as well.
4. I promise Gabe that I will post more about this band before the week is out.
That’s all, until the next wave.
I thought I'd take a little nostalgia trip tonight and glance over Last Rights with Johnny Boscow, technically the first screenplay I ever wrote from start to finish.
As I dug through my computer though, I couldn't locate it. The search continues, but I think it's gone. All of my character notes and research info for that is gone as well. All I really have left to remember it by is this scene on Leonard Hughes.
Wow...
Sad tidings...for me anyway. Here's to you Last Rights. In retrospect, not a brilliant screenplay, not even a good one, and I may very well have been the only person who ever read it...but it was mine.
2004 - 2006
Let’s be honest, I’ve never been a terrible fan of credit card promotion. Aside from the annoying letters and pre-approved cards I endlessly receive in the mail, my primary annoyance is witty credit card commercials. Ah yes…There have been several attempts by various card companies to make a remarkable credit card commercial. Along that path, over the past few years we have seen notable attempts involving everything from Robert DeNiro to the Patriots.
While these attempts have been steadily better, I’ve never been outright amused by a credit card commercial…and certainly not enticed to sign up.
Maybe this can be traced back to my parents and their employment at American Express. American Express isn’t a bad company. They put food on the table. But I never really took pleasure in the idea that my parents worked for a corporate beast…and that they wanted to see this beast grow. I simply couldn’t wrap my mind around devoting oneself to a corporate institution like that. Not that they were obsessed mind you…simply supportive. I believe that as a result, I cannot stand credit card advertisement.
Over the last couple of months however, American Express has called a truce.
Yes, they reached a loving hand out through a new series of commercials and said, “We’ll meet you halfway Brock”. Not literally…but their latest set of filmmaker focused advertisements couldn’t amuse me more.
It all started with ads featuring name actors like DeNiro and Kate Winslet. As they walked through some urban environment or backlot, voice over would ramp in, narrating for us their “daily life”.
Clever?
I’ll admit.
Amusing?
Nope.
But then, these “My Life” commercials moved into odd territory with an M. Night Shyamalan inspired commercial. The difference herein is that American Express gave free reign to Shyamalan, letting him direct the commercial and, in effect, make a two-minute short. The ad unfolds around Shyamalan sitting (uncomfortably) in a restaurant, taking note of all the strange events happening around him. There’s even a little “familiar” moment when a girl drops some wine glasses, only to have them shatter to the ground below.
It’s not the best cinematic experience since Signs, but it’s strangely funny. I had to give it to American Express; they made a commercial with one of my favorite filmmakers…and, ingeniously, let him direct it.
So, there was a sort of compromise.
But tonight, I saw their latest ad. A commercial for Wes Anderson.
Genius. When a commercial opens with Jason Schwartzman and a Sikh(?) blowing up a car with a ballpoint pen detonator, rest assured that you’ve won me over.
The rest of the commercial unfolds as Anderson walks through a film set, acting very “director-like”, in one of his trademark, ridiculously lengthy tracking shots. “Can you do a .357 with a bayonet?” Anderson asks his prop-master. A shrug. “Yeah, I don’t see why not.” It’s a funny piece that is largely unexpected. I mean, I can understand the Shyamalan commercial; he’s emerged as a filmmaker that Joe Everyman equates with the word “director”. But Wes Anderson? I thought his influence rarely extended beyond film school and New Yorker subscribers.
And yet, I have to kind of applaud American Express for making commercials with quirky, fresh new directors as opposed to picking familiar hats like Spielberg or Lucas. Not only that, but these commercials completely embrace what these directors are about. They’re not just cookie-cutter pieces with Anderson or Shyamalan standing in front of a white backdrop, waxing useless on the importance of owning an Amex card. They are completely in the style of said filmmaker.
Let us mark it: the first time I’ve enjoyed a credit card commercial…ever.
My next wish is that they keep up with the director-centric commercials and make one with a music video giant: Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry.
