random stuff

Clearing out some old documents from my computer, I'm finding a few files that are just random embedded codes from youtube, maybe from discussions I have had, maybe with the intention of posting them here. No comment for now. We'll see if any of it makes any sense. Hoth corridor – Han and Leia Luke’s lightsaber in Jedi Star Wars bloopers sequence from a DVD doc There is more to the infamous Greedo scene, which Lucas tried to kiddie-proof in 1997. It’s not necessarily safer by having Greedo get off a shot first. Look closely at it and with the shots under the table we are invited to anticipate Han’s pre-emptive move and we do so gleefully and we see Greedo’s death as inevitable. He is asking for it. The scene caps off with Han’s glib, “Sorry for the mess.” So as upsetting as Lucas’ revision was, much of the dark elements of the scene remain and it is still about disposal of a dangerous character and eliminating a headache. Ultimately I would say to any child that yes, I condone this death of Greedo. Don’t wait for someone who has a gun on you to actually fire if you can get off a good shot under the table. That’s the moral – if a bounty hunter threatens you, kill him. What’s especially amusing looking at this clip is that Greedo is killed under the table, and instantly, so his species Rodians, must have their hearts or brains in their crotch. Romancing the Stone by Eddy Grant I still don’t know why the song was replaced with something generic for the end credits of the VHS and the DVD release of the film, even after going to the trouble of integrating Grant into the much-played music video. Nothing wrong with the song. Oddly this great video isn’t on the Jewel of the Nile DVD. Should have been. What a corrupt, miserable business.

Spielberg's Curriculum

SPIELBERG’S CURRICULUM: Movies apparently recommended by Spielberg. I don't know if the idea is that if you have seen all of them you will be endowed with his gift for directing or whether it is for film studies types who will put finder to cheek and nod about this or that. I have certainly seen most of them. I do not know for sure whether this list was compiled by Spielberg himself. It is odd that his own Close Encounters is on there, for example, even though it is a great movie. Also odd that Godfather III is on there, which is not quite great despite being better than its reputation. My apologies if the formatting of the list doesn't survive the blog. 1. 12 Angry Men Sidney Lumet Lee J. Cobb, Henry Fonda 2. 2001 Stanley Kubrick Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood 3. 400 Blows Francios Truffaut Jean-Pierre Leaud 4. 8 1/2 Federico Fellini Marcello Mastroianni 5. Adam's Rib George Cukor Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy 6. Alfie Lewis Gilbert Michael Caine, Shelley Winters 7. Al Capone Richard Wilson Rod Steiger 8. All About Eve Joseph Mankiewicz Anne Baxter, Bette Davis 9. All That Jazz Bob Fosse Jessica Lange, Roy Scheider 10. American In Paris Vincent Minnelli Gene Kelly 11. And Justice For All Norman Jewison Al Pacino, Lee Strasberg 12. Annie Hall Woody Allen Woody Allen, Diane Keaton 13. Apartment, The Billy Wilder Jack Lemmon, Shirley McLaine 14. Apocalypse Now Francis Coppola Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen 15. All/Presidents Men Alan Pakula Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford 16. Baby Doll Elia Kazan Carroll Baker, Karl Malden 17. Bang/Drum Slowly John Hancock Robert DeNiro, Michael Moriarty 18. Barefoot In/Park Gene Saks Jane Fonda, Robert Redford 19. Battleship Potemkin Sergei Eisenstein Vladimir Barsky 20. Belle De Jour Luis Bunuel Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel 21. Best Years/Lives William Wyler Fredric March, Harold Russell 22. Big Sleep, The Howard Hawks Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall 23. Bicycle Thief Vittorio de Sica Lamberto Maggiorani 24. Big Chill, The Lawrence Kasdan Goldblum, Hurt, Kline, Close 25. Birds, The Alfred Hitchcock Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor 26. Body Heat Lawrence Kasdan William Hurt, Kathleen Turner 27. Bonnie & Clyde Arthur Penn Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway 28. Breakfast/Tiffany's Blake Edwards Audrey Hepburn, Mickey Rooney 29. Breathless Jean Luc Goddard Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Segal 30. Bridge/River Kwai David Lean Alec Guiness, William Holden 31. Brief Encounter David Lean Trevor Howard, Celia Johnson 32. Bringing Up Baby Howard Hawks Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn 33. Bullitt Peter Yates Steve McQueen 34. Butch/Sundance George Roy Hill Paul Newman, Robert Redford 35. Cape Fear J. Lee Thompson Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck 36. Casablanca Michael Curtiz Bergman, Bogart 37. Celebration, The Thomas Vinterberg 38. Champ, The Franco Zeffirelli Jon Voight 39. Charade Stanley Donen Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn 40. Chase, The Arthur Penn Brando, Duvall, Redford 41. Children/Paradise Marcel Came Etienne Decroux, Arletty 42. Chinatown Roman Polanski Faye Dunaway, Jack Nicholson 43. Citizen Kane Orson Welles Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles 44. Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick Malcolm McDowell 45. Close Encounters Steven Spielberg Richard Dreyfuss, Ted Garr 46. Come Back/Sheba Daniel Mann Shirley Booth, Burt Lancaster 47. Cool Hand Luke Stuart Rosenberg Paul Newman 48. Conversation, The Francis Coppola Gene Hackman 49. Day/Earth/Still Robert Wise Billy Gray, Hugh Marlowe 50. Days/Wine & Roses Blake Edwards Jack Lemmon, Lee Remick 51. Deer Hunter, The Michael Cimino DeNiro, Walken, Streep 52. Dog Day Afternoon Sidney Lumet John Cazale, Al Pacino 53. Double Indemnity Billy Wilder Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck 54. Doctor Zhivago David Lean Julie Christie, Omar Sharif 55. East of Eden Elia Kazan James Dean, Jo Harris 56. Exorcist,The William Friedkin Ellen Burstyn, Jason Miller 57. Face In The Crowd Elia Kazan Andy Griffith, Walter Matthau 58. Five Easy Pieces Bob Rafelson Karen Black, Jack Nicholson 59. Fly, The David Cronenberg Jeff Goldblum 60. French Connection William Friedkin Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider 61. French Conn. 2 John Frankenheimer Gene Hackman, Fernando Rey 62. From Here/Eternity Fred Zinneman Montgomery Clift, Burt Lancaster 63. Fugitive Kind, The Sidney Lumet Marlon Brando 64. Gaslight George Cukor Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten 65. General, The Buster Keaton Buster Keaton 66. Gntlmn’s Agrmnt Elia Kazan John Garfield, Gregory Peck 67. Giant George Stevens Dean, Hudson, Taylor 68. Gone With/Wind Victor Fleming Clark Gable, Vivian Leigh 69. Grand Illusion Jean Renoir Erich Von Stroheim 70. Great Escape, The John Sturges Steve McQueen 71. Godfather, The Francis Coppola Marlon Brando, Al Pacino 72. Godfatherr II, The Francis Coppola Al Pacino, Robert De Niro 73. Godfather III, The Francis Coppola Al Pacino, Andy Garcia 74. Graduate, The Mike Nichols Anne Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman 75. Grapes Of Wrath John Ford Jane Darwell, Henry Fonda 76. Great Santini, The Lewis John Carlino Robert Duvall 77. Guess Who's… Stanley Kramer Sidney Poitier 78. Guns Of Navaronne J. Lee Thompson Gregory Peck, Anthony Quinn 79. Heiress, The William Wyler Montgomery Clift, Olivia/Havilland 80. High Noon Fred Zinneman Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly 81. Hud Martin Ritt Patricia Neal, Paul Newman 82. Hunter, The Buzz Kulik Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach 83. Hustler, The Robert Rossen Jackie Gleason, Paul Newman 84. His Girl Friday Howard Hawks Cary Grant 85. Holiday George Cukor Cary Grant Katherine Hepburn 86. I Confess Alfred Hitchcock Montgomery Clift, Karl Malden 87. Immigrant, The Charlie Chaplin Charlie Chaplin 88. In A Lonely Place Nicolas Ray Humphrey Bogart 89. In/Heat Of/Night Norman Jewison Sidney Poitier, Rod Steiger 90. Indiscretion/Wife Vittorio de Sica Montgomery Clift Jennifer Jones 91. It Happened/Night Frank Capra Claudette Colbert Clark Gable 92. It's A Wonderful Life Frank Capra Jimmy Stewart 93. Jdgmnt/Nuremberg Stanley Kramer Montgomery Clift, Burt Lancaster 94. Julius Caesar Joseph Mankiewicz Marlon Brando, Charlton Heston 95. Kramer Vs. Kramer Robert Benton Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep 96. Last Detail, The Hal Ashby Jack Nicholson, Randy Quaid 97. Last Picture Show Peter Bogdanovich Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shephard 98. Last Tango In Paris Bernardo Bertolucci Marlon Brando 99. Lawrence Of Arabia David Lean Peter O'Toole 100. Little Foxes, The William Wyler Bette Davis, Teresa Wright 101. Lolita Stanley Kubrick James Mason, Peter Sellers 102. Lonelyhearts Vincent J. Donahue Montgomery Clift 103. Long Day's Journey Sidney Lumet Katherine Hepburn, Jason Robards 104. Long Hot Summer Martin Ritt Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward 105. Lost In America Albert Brooks Albert Brooks, Julie Hagerty 106. Lost Weekend Billy Wilder Ray Milland 107. Love Story Arthur Hiller Ali McGraw, Ryan O'Neal 108. M Fritz Lang Peter Lorre 109. Magnif. Ambersons Orson Welles Tim Holt, Orson Welles 110. Magnificent Seven John Sturges Yul Brenner, Steve McQueen 111. Man/Shot Liberty… John Ford Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne 112. Manchurian Cand. John Frankenheimer Angela Lansbury, Frank Sinatra 113. Marathon Man John Schlesinger Dustin Hoffman, Laurence Olivier 114. Marty Delbert Mann Ernest Borgnine 115. Mean Streets Martin Scorsese Robert DeNiro, Harvey Keitel 116. Men, The Fred Zinneman Marlon Brando 117. Metropolis Fritz Lang Brigitte Heim, Theodore Loos 118. Midnight Cowboy John Schlesinger Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voiqht 119. Miracle/Morgan's… Preston Sturges Bobby Watson 120. Misfits, The John Huston Clift, Gable, Monroe 121. Mississippi Burning Alan Parker Willem Defoe, Gene Hackman 122. Missouri Breaks Arthur Penn Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson 123. Modern Romance Albert Brooks Albert Brooks, Bruno Kirby 124. Modern Times Charlie Chaplin Charlie Chaplin 125. Mr. Smith Goes To… Frank Capra Jimmy Stewart, Claude Rains 126. Mutiny/Bounty Frank Lloyd Marlon Brando 127. My Fair Lady George Cukor Rex Harrison, Audrey Hepburn 128. Nashville Robert Altman Ned Beatty, Jeff Goldblum 129. National Velvet Clarence Brown Angela Lansbury, Elizabeth Taylor 130. Network Sidney Lumet Faye Dunaway, William Holden 131. North By Northwest Alfred Hitchcock Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint 132. Notorious Alfred Hitchcock Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant 133. No Way To Treat… Jack Smight Rod Steiger 134. Odd Couple, The Gene Saks Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau 135. On the Waterfront Elia Kazan Brando, Malden, Steiger 136. One/Cuckoo's Nest Milos Foreman Jack Nicholson, Danny Divito 137. One-Eyed Jacks Marlon Brando Marlon Brando, Karl Malden 138. Ordinary People Robert Redford Mary Moore, Donald Sutherland 139. Panic/Needle Park Jerry Schatzberg Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino 140. Papillion Franklin Schaffner Dustin Hoffman, Steve McQueen 141. Party, The Blake Edwards Peter Sellers 142. Parallax View Alan Pakula Warren Beatty, Hume Cronyn 143. Patton Franklin Schaffner Karl Malden, George C. Scott 144. Pawnbroker, The Sidney Lumet Rod Steiger 145. Philadelphia Story Georqe Cukor Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn 146. Public Enemy, The William Wellman James Cagney 147. Psycho Alfred Hitchcock Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins 148. Quiet Man, The John Ford John Wayne, Maureen O’Hara 149. Raging Bull Martin Scorsese Robert DeNiro 150. Rain People, The Francis Coppola James Caan, Robert Duvall 151. Raintree County Edward Dmytryk Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor 152. Ramblin' Rose Martha Coolidge Laura Dern, Robert Duvall 153. Real Life Albert Brooks Albert Brooks, Charles Grodin 154. Rear Window Alfred Hitchcock Gace Kelly, Jimmy Stewart 155. Rebel W/out Cause Nicholas Ray James Dean, Natalie Wood 156. Red River Howard Hawks Montgomery Clift, John Wayne 157. Reflections in a… John Huston Marlon Brando, Julie Harris 158. Requiem for a… Ralph Nelson Anthony Quinn, Jackie Gleason 159. Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski Mia Farrow, Ruth Gordon 160. Runaway Train Andrei Konchalovsky Eric Roberts, Jon Voight 161. Safety Last Harold Lloyd Harold Lloyd 162. Sand Pebbles Robert Wise Steve McQueen 163. Saturday Night Fever John Badham John Travolta 164. Sayonara Joshua Logan Marlon Brando 165. Scarecrow Jerry Schatzberg Gene Hackman, Al Pacino 166. Scarface Brian De Palma Al Pacino, Michelle Pfeiffer 167. Scent Of A Woman Martin Brest Al Pacino 168. Searchers, The John Ford John Wayne, Natalie Wood 169. Serpico Sidney Lumet Al Pacino 170. Seven Samurai Akira Kurosawa Takashi Shimura, Toshiro Mifune 171. Seventh Seal Ingmar Bergman Max Von Sydow 172. Signal 7 173. Singin' In the Rain Stanley Donen Gene Kelly, Rita Moreno 174. Smiles of a… Ingmar Bergman Jarl Kulle 175. Soldier In The Rain Ralph Nelson Jackie Gleason, Steve McQueen 176. Some Like It Hot Billy Wilder Jack Lemmon, Marilyn Monroe 177. Sound Of Music Robert Wise Julie Andrews 178. Splendor/Grass Elia Kazan Warren Beatty, Natalie Wood 179. Stagecoach John Ford James Mason, John Wayne 180. Star Is Born William Wellman Janet Gaynor, Fredric March 181. Star Wars George Lucas Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford 182. Streetcar/Desire Elia Kazan Marlon Brando, Vivian Leigh 183. Suddenly Last… Joseph Mankiewicz Clift, Hepburn, Taylor 184. Sullivan's Travels Preston Sturges Veronica Lake, Joel McCrea 185. Sunset Boulevard Billy Wilder William Holden, Gloria Swanson 186. Sweet Bird of Youth Richard Brooks Paul Newman, Geraldine Page 187. Taxi Driver Martin Scorsese Robert DeNiro, Harvey Keitel 188. Teahouse of the… Daniel Mann Marlon Brando 189. Tender Mercies Bruce Beresford Robert Duvall 190. Third Man, The Carol Reed Orson Welles 191. Three Days/Condor Sidney Pollack Faye Dunaway, Robert Redford 192. To Kill/Mockingbird Robert Mulligan Gregory Peck 193. Tootsie Sidney Pollack Dustin Hoffman 194. Tree Grows in… Elia Kazan James Dunn, Peg 195. Trip To Bountiful, A Peter Masterson Geraldine Page 196. Two Rode Together John Ford Jimmy Stewart 197. Verdict, The Sidney Lumet Paul Newman, George Mason 198. Vertigo Alfred Hitchcock Kim Novak, Jimmy Stewart 199. Viva Zapata Elia Kazan Marlon Brando, Karl Malden 200. Wait Until Dark Terence Young Alan Arkin, Audrey Hepburn 201. West Side Story Jerome Robbins Rita Moreno, Natalie Wood 202. White Christmas Michael Curtiz Bing Crosby 203. Who's Afraid… Mike Nichols Richard Burton 204. Wild One, The Laszlo Benedek Marlon Brando, Lee Marvin 205. Wild River Elia Kazan Montgomery Clift 206. Young Lions, The Edward Dmytryk Brando, Clift

Spin City and movie making

I found these notes in my files and I don't recall posting them in a blog so here goes. There is one surviving link to a segment from the Spin City episode where Christopher Lloyd guest starred. The rest of the links are an interesting look behind the scenes of the Glenn Close/Mel Gibson Hamlet. Not much of a connection, but there it is. Spin City: Back to the Future IV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWzlHmJQUXQ&feature=related Mel Gibson’s Video Diary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFWlwCrl5aw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQplwVJW6qQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAuy-fVHU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT52mmn1rIY

11/22/63 and 9/11/2001 and conspiracies

Today I had more trouble than usual finding the Blogger access on my Google account. It's just a fact that things have changed in the last 48 hours or so since I last posted anything or checked into it. Maybe there is something behind it. Maybe Google doesn't want it to be so easy for people to use the blogging service. It had been click the arrow in the upper right, then in the drop-down choose account and then in the top middle will be another arrow to click and in that drop down you look for Blogger. Today there is the extra hurdle of signing in yet again to something called Dashboard then manage accounts and then find Blogger again. The thing about being conspiracy-minded is that it is merely making connections. They say intelligence is understanding the relationship between things. We may or may not understand but will be compelled to see relationships and connect the dots. This brings us closer to the truth than the naive idea that there are no connections. But in the case of the JFK assassination (which I should have posted on a couple of days earlier, but was thwarted by dark forces) all you really need is for more than one person to get the same idea to shoot at the President in Dealey Plaza as the motorcade route passes. Oswald doesn't have to know about anyone who might be lurking in the grassy knoll. The shooters do not have to conspire. Only three participants are required for the word conspiracy to be applied legally. Yet as soon as the dismissive term "conspiracy theory" is thrown around, it is a straw man easily dashed because of the false premise that hundreds of people must have known about it. If you think of the movie Cube where the characters speculate about how an evil device can be made it is mentioned that many systems are compartmentalized and individual parts might be worked on without each worker understanding the function of the whole. Oswald was interested in Russia and communism and the issue of Cuba, and that may have been motivation enough. He may have found out when everyone else did about the visit to Dallas, as may have the person behind the grassy knoll. But chances are that someone was aware of Oswald and did not act to stop him, and that person having little faith in him and his aim just might have arranged for the grassy knoll shooter and helped facilitate that person's escape. That does NOT have to involve a lot of people in the know. It is actually a quite manageable system. Witnesses were present who heard shoots from the knoll and who looked in that direction. Then Oswald's location above in the book depository might have drawn attention. I don't know. But though the book by Stephen King 11/22/63 does not firmly commit to whether any other shooters might have been ready, King says in his afterward that his research convinces him that there was no conspiracy and the book refers to Oliver Stone dismissively and conspiracy theorists are often described as the "tin foil hat" crowd. I guess I should make myself a tin foil hat. I've been meaning to. I simply do not agree with the idea that we must err on the side of closing down a supposed conspiracy - or what I prefer to call a mystery - when there are unanswered questions and allegations that have not been answered to my satisfaction. Best to admit something is unresolved. Penn and Teller had an episode of "Bullshit" that attempted to debunk the JFK assassination theory by addressing the direction his head goes - back and to the left - by shooting a watermelon to show that an object shot from behind may also fall backward. But it is worth watching the documentary that comes with Oliver Stone's movie and listening to his commentary track to address issues in depth. Stephen King's own wife Tabath believes the "conspiracy" about JFK and rejects the flawed Warren Commission report. There are people I respect who do not accept the conspiracies or questions about the events of 9/11/2001 - Bill Maher and Bill Clinton have demonstrated anger towards "truthers." Rachael Maddow has talked about the novel-style publication of the 9/11 commission report, and the comic book adaptation and has addressed some of the wilder perceived connections. There are also some people who scare me and whom I do not warm to, like the pro-gun Infowars guy, who embrace the idea that 9/11 was an inside job - and yet that uncomfortable spin is the one I lean toward. Again, it would not take massive co-operation and awareness of any big picture for all participants. I am sick of the joke that because George W. Bush appeared to be a bumpkin that the government could not orchestrate their presumed part in 9/11 any more competently than they managed other things. They knew it could happen. What action did they take? Staff at the World Trade Center were removed from their floors in the weeks before 9/11 ostensibly for fire drills, and supposedly incendiary devices were installed at this time. Osama bin Lauden and others involved in the construction industry did not expect that a plane hitting the upper third of a huge building would cause it to pancake. Building 7 was raised hours after the two towers fell, and it had not been hit at all by any plane. The harmless thing to admit is that a team could have set incendiaries in the hours since the collapse of World Trade 1 and 2, perhaps in case there had been vibrations that weakened the other structure and they would not want to be responsible for people going in there. That could have been admitted easily, and the pancaking of that building definitely does indicate a controlled explosion. So maybe they did not want to say that they sent a team into that building to plant explosions in the hours following the tragedy - maybe they thought it would seem strange. But no stranger than if those devices were implanted in the days leading up to 9/11. This does not mean that FBI explosive teams implanting incendiaries all knew this was to make sure the buildings went down and were not just standing damaged when the expected fire or plane crashes happened. They don't all have to conspire. They just all have to want to cover their butts.

Pitch: The Curse of Cursing

A movie star participating in home building with Habitat for Humanity is videotaped by a budding paparazzi who catches the moment where the star accidentally hammers his thumb and mutters, "Goddamn it!" The clip is posted on-line and causes religious groups to boycott the star for exposing his true beliefs against God and various faiths weigh in to denounce him and make sure his new films and TV shows are boycotted. He gives an apology and cops to the fact that yes under stress his true feelings are revealed and submits to an interview with Jerry Springer who is the only arbiter of truth and agrees to let someone hammer his hand for extreme pain before each answer. But the process fails and with a crushed hand and spirit he is visited by Jesus who offers to smite them all. He has mercy on his tormenters and decides only to let Jesus kill the paparazzi - not just the one who posted the video but every site and gossip rag. It is a bloodbath. Cameras explode, just enough to envelope their operators. Red carpets become even redder, purely with paparazzi blood, with the celebrities all spared the carnage. I don't guarantee there would be an audience for this, but I have a feeling there might be some support.

The Direct Approach

Insist on reading an outline before looking at a complete draft of a script. Whether it is my own or someone else’s, the most vital screenwriting problems can be found at the plot and outline stage. But even then, there isn’t any trace of the “werewolf” story in this partially shot music video I did (now taken from a VHS but originally shot on ¾ inch) just before heading off to college. The singer felt he had grown from the song he had composed and recorded, and the werewolf shots were never done even though the relationship stuff looks pretty good. Keeping the end in mind, ask yourself what would make the finished product less than the sum of its parts and the experience of directing a disappointment, if not a colossal waste. Make sure that Murphy’s Law and Step #2 are discussed thoroughly with each prospective team member so that your hands are not tied by politics or process. Ensure that there is a protocol in place where a sign-off by the director is required. Obviously my own illustrations are nothing amazing, but storyboarding helps me think. And I think they can become a common frame of reference – you need THIS shot in order for THAT shot to answer it. If storyboarding is part of your process, do it and have it as a reference point. A commentary by Mike Nichols referred to “that terrible thing of making the cinematographer watch a list of movies” so showing frame grabs to save time if there is a specific look might be preferred; as long as you know there is a common frame of reference; you may cite a movie or piece of artwork and not remember it the same. Altman and Mel Brooks had a copy of the Last Supper on hand to restage it; Van Sant had frames from Psycho for his shot for shot remake. Storyboards may not be in fashion, but showing up cold expecting to be “inspired by the set” is an abdication of authority and may likely result in the most standard default coverage positions. Some directors feel there are two kinds of shots – basic or fancy, the latter being automatic wankery that distracts instead of adds to audience involvement. But used correctly, there may be ONE best shot position for each beat or moment or line in a scene, so the fact that an eighth of a page of script is “covered” by another camera does not mean that the filmmaking communication is complete. The frame and relationships between set, background, and actors all combine for the message and the tone or counterpoint you intend. If someone feels that close-ups of faces are the end-all be-all of shooting a scene, it may not require a director. It is pictures of people talking and may not be worth fighting for. Yet – some shows with simple script formats like Castle get by on close-up coverage and still manage to do it with style on occasion. Your eyes just have to be open as to whether you have an up-hill battle. Better to really test a director by removing dialogue and having to tell the story with the frame. Use them to anticipate shots on a scout as a way to choose or eliminate locations and/or refine boards The often quoted Art of War says that a battle is won or lost before it has begun. But even if it is a simple 30 second short like this one, you can talk through the basic shot sequence and beats of it. I have been starting to make some shorts for the hell of it while planning other things partly to get others engaged in making something. In 2005 I generated a lot of footage intended for a feature and then had to cancel it. I used some of it in this video, which seems artsy and meaningful even though it is the equivalent of home movies now. Here is a video short I made in 1992 during a couple of days of summer vacation. Day one was an early morning for the main shoot and then day two was just an hour with the hitchhiker getting a few shots. Those were the good old days where you just need a few people who are game enough to wake up early and make something up. I had to borrow the camera and equipment from the community channel, and a skeleton from the biology department of my highschool, and the car from one of my sisters. The ending is less funny once I tried to get a copy of the movie to the hitchhiker when visiting town between semesters. I had called his dad asking for him a couple of times before someone at the TV station told me the young man had a run-in with mobsters and ended up at the bottom of Lake Nippissing. I was deeply saddened by that, since I thought I should somehow know and I usually made movies with friends for recreation and hoped to have everyone be able to enjoy them, done as a lark. This is a short 16mm doc I co-directed in third semester of Humber College in the early 90’s. There was some controversy mainly about a swish-pan transition that occurs at the 1:20 mark. The camera guy and the editor both said they knew what I meant (and had storyboarded and typed up verbally) in terms of how it works, then they omitted it. So I asked our crew producer if I could recut what had been left out to redeem myself. I fixed it, got major flack for that, but I DON’T REGRET IT. Unless you defend a direction, you will end up looking crazy. You have to vindicate yourself, and if someone has LIED that they KNEW what you meant, and then they left you hanging out to dry then I say fight that battle. In the aftermath, I was asked by the same crew to direct their drama project that year, below. Board Beyond Belief I know that when Dumb and Dumber began shooting, the directors told the crew “Look, we don’t know what the hell we’re doing when it comes to filming so we are counting on you to cover our asses.” I would love to be able to start things off on the right foot with key crew and disarm them and motivate them with such a charming disclosure. They say that if a director comes off like a know-it-all auteur he/she will be crucified by the crew. All the more reason to kick things off in a modest way. But even though I am a savant who is lucky to have graduated high school, and even though I want everyone to know I am approachable and that they can play devil’s advocate and point out things I may have overlooked, I personally must be fussy about the frame and the cut. I want that challenge. The blocking of actors and the placement of the frame are not arbitrary and I feel that I have a lifetime absorbing what I consider film grammar and the meaning that can be taken (whether or not it is intended) by what is shown and how it is introduced and whether something is withheld. As I present people with a script, it is not because I think the actors can’t think of different or better dialogue but because I wish to hear this dialogue have life breathed into it and because I consider the subtle influence of an actors habits of being and body language and inflection that they bring as just as important as generating new dialogue and that I do not want a performer to have the breaks on and be in writing mode by the time of shooting but to have surrendered to the text and committed to it and be free to focus naturally on the other elements of performance. By the same token, if the cinematographer and production designer and set decorator and costume department can see my storyboards early on then the way in which elements will blend or clash or give contrast will be known and choices can be informed; If a camera move – a pan or a tilt – requires vertical information or horizontal information to make a blur of action this can be planned in advance rather than discovered in a panic on set and having choices replaced by compromise. It is said that the more the director can be open about a “vision” the better chance of getting it across and the crew feeling that the project is controlled in a responsible way that respects everyone’s time and input. I reject passionately the idea that a director must withhold storyboards because they will offend the DP or because they imply a cut which will offend the editor. My priority is as described here. I want people on the team who are great at their job and don’t have to concentrate on second-guessing my job. If you like a shot choice or a strange editing gimmick in something where my only credit is directing, I’d like to know that it is there by design as directed by me. If I am very concerned about politics with an editor, then I can hire only an assistant editor and explain that I am the defector editor so that I avoid frustrating that person or myself – and then reward the person with the sole editing credit. The same cannot be done with a D.P.. The personality just has to be the right fit. Although even if you have worked with someone before, it is wise to consider giving every prospective crew member a copy of this. If you are very organized, you can make sure they read and sign it when you are getting each person to sign a crew or volunteer contract or a talent release. It can be surprising the basic and seemingly obvious aspects of filmmaking that don’t get nailed down or that cause confusion because people do not want to seem self-serving, arrogant, condescending, or in any way insulting to the intelligence of the other person. But it is worth that risk to be clear, and when the movie is done on budget and on time and people are amused and proud of the way it all fits together it won’t matter if you are called a power freak. It is also worth noting that even if people say “yes, I understand this – OF COURSE!” and look at you with indignity, they may not understand and/or may have undisclosed intentions or motives. There is little to be done about that. The gold that backs up the currency of my determination to follow a vision is the memory of past projects where I didn’t and the sure knowledge that the end product I live for is what must be protected and what my FRIENDS and my TRUE ALLIES will also wish to defend. Anything else is a mind-f**k from people with their own agendas and people who can not conceive of someone actually being the author of an entire movie. But you also in turn have to be vigilant. If you want to use a device from the editing toolbox, be sure that people know what you need. The driver of a car that has to drive through frame TWICE must be told before he rides away from the location. The blind spot will be delegation, trust, politeness – anything that causes you to stifle a direction. Maybe a short-hand will be developed with certain crew. And so will misunderstandings. Here's part of Bit Babies, a musical satire I did with an Ontario Arts Council Emerging Artists grant (as part of the budget) back in 2003/4, partly during the August 2003 blackout: There are good reasons and false reasons to be involved in the support crew of a movie. Money and/or credit and/or experience I consider valid. Same goes for producing. A false reason might be personal self expression. The writer, the director or a performer can count expression as a true reason, and they should not have to announce their need for it; it can be taken for granted. Other contributors to a movie are involved in practical or logistical and objective work that keeps the project at a professional quality. Undisclosed expectations are usually at the root of dissatisfaction, so it is recommended that this be ironed out in advance of a project. A Cinematographer may demand autonomy and refuse to look at storyboards. No matter how gifted he/she is at shooting and lighting, this would negate working with me. A cinematographer might even help fight for a shot the director has pre-designed when there is a time crunch and pressure to drop it. The above point might be considered weak because there is a perception that the personality of a director is one who dives in and gets his/her way in the moment and on the day by constant negotiation and finesse and not because of a pre-arranged rule or principle. That is of little concern to me, since reduction of conflict on set is of central concern and the audience will not care who did what or how a production came together. But this below example is me throwing out many of my rules because I had a small window to do a stunt/short when I had access to the old Maple Leaf Gardens before the old pad was cored and demolished. I had cast an actor for a Jesus short and before we got around to that I thought I would ask him to pop in during lunch for 10 minutes to be the LAST PERSON to skate on the MLG pad. (Even if it is roller blades, because the ice from Battle of the Blades was goneis gone.) Officially this didn't happen. I had to run around hand-held and just get whatever shots I could of this unofficial visit. I as a director I usually need to be convinced that even my own plan is worth doing and has a cinematic quality and conveys usually a whimsical tone that is implied by the content. In the marrow of my bones, I feel how easy it is for something to feel bland. The content will be the way it is anticipating the way it will be shot. The cut and the frame and the camera move or stillness are all part of the communication, from shot to shot.

Filmmaker Commentary Tracks and their Usefulness

They say listen to people who are doing what you want to do. So I’m surprised that it is in fashion to disrespect the opportunity provided by the better DVD commentaries. I don’t buy a DVD generally unless there is a commentary. They can be long, but at least like radio or a podcast you can listen while doing other things. Here are a few samples. Control – distinguishing between the actor’s “journey as a human being” as opposed to honoring the character and function of the story. David Fincher commentary on various films Ridley Scott – commentary from Thelma and Louise is very worth hearing Beyond these, I’d recommend Aranovski’s commentary for Requiem for a Dream which gets into the why of some shot choices. For example, it would not have occurred to me that in a restaurant dialogue scene the person with more depth and background behind him/her has the “authority” in the scene. Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan) gives good commentary on his disks, Frank Darabont’s commentaries on Shawshank, Green Mile and The Mist are very informative, any movie on which Walter Murch was editor or sound he might have a separate commentary for his own discipline, The Conversation, for example, which breaks things down more than the director commentary. Writer/actor Emma Thompson has her own commentary on Sense and Sensibility which is more worthwhile than the director’s track for Sense and Sensibility. If you only have time to hear one commentary on Citizen Kane, choose the Roger Ebert version which is very informative and especially useful to film students. Roger Deacons the cinematographer from Fargo gets to provide its only commentary track, but he lets you know how the shots came about and his process with the meticulous Coen brothers as well as the truth about the “true story” card at the beginning. Some directors do embrace commentary tracks for the sake of posterity and use the time efficiently, while others admittedly seem to recline and wax nostalgic with actors and may not have screened the film in years or planned an approach to the track nor had anything to get off the chest. Haskell Wexler Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Audio Commentary is very detailed, best listened to if you are already familiar with Mike Nichols’ first feature but the descriptions by Wexler are detailed enough that you can imagine the set-ups and situations explained.

Inventory of my VHS tapes

You know that you've got way too much free time when you are making a video of your old video tapes. I also see and hear enough little glitches that I can't ignore that it's time to do something about my editing software. Either I need more memory or something fatal has caused a halting fault in the previews. Takes a lot longer than it should. But I figure if I don't post this it will be a waste instead of an investment in time. Like my investment in some VHS tapes. Mostly Hollywood stuff, and only one Toronto indie filmmaker represented.

Movie Cops

Just a few random thoughts about film. I suppose this is about two movie cops, a dirty one from Rampart and a heroic one from Die Hard 5, as well as the third kind of cops - the ones in the audience policing the product. There are two movies I took a long time to see because of their reputation. A) too much hand-held b) poor story structure. ***Those are the charges against Rampart and A Good Day To Die Hard, anyway. People had represented Rampart as something I wouldn’t like on the basis of not having a clear structure or a point or resolution. I watched it on DVD and then listened to the commentary. The movie is how it should be and is a character piece that is reminiscent of Taxi Driver in the sense that is compelling because of the performances despite your unwillingness to identify. The last couple of images may not have been part of the original plan but they do bring to mind the final images of Taxi Driver – main character at the wheel of a car, close-up, unsettled, and the view of street lights ahead under ending credits. One scene in particular comes to mind in terms of choices, a sand dune obscures the lower frame and some of the action in a way that is effective between Woody Harrelson and Ned Beatty. Another scene between them in a restaurant photographs them from outside the booth in a way that might bring to mind a confessional. Apparently the plan was to obscure Woody’s cop character “Date Rape” Dave Brown as the movie progresses. I like the fact that creative decisions have been made despite the argument these days that every scene also has to be shot with close-ups of anyone speaking – which a network or studio may default to if they feel young audiences (or those watching on small devices) will become restless unless they see full screen faces. Any time a scene survives that requires the audience to lean forward and pay attention and imagine what is happening just out of frame it is a victory for the creative process, whether it comes 100% from the director or other crew and cast have fought for it. Also, strange is the tendency of reviewers (especially on-line reviewers) to police the format as to whether the movie has a straight-line Syd Field/Robert McKee three act structure with day-glow plot-points and turning points and the beats of audience rooting interest firmly in place. Those rules may be helpful for screenwriters editing their stories and refining them in terms of how much time is devoted to a given story element, but they are mostly popular as tools for non-writers, executives, gate-keepers, official readers to say no to a script and have some sort of handy lingo to justify it. Also to sell books and seminars. It is distressing that so many people attacked this film for not following lock-step with screenwriting dogma. (I once participated in a screenwriting circle in which the leader/host pinned me down to define the word dogma. In the Catholic church for example, it would be an edict or a regulation that comes from man but is not attributed to Jesus so it is questionable. And example would be “don’t eat meat on Friday.” In scriptwriting, there is the semantic distinction between rules and principles. One guru says there must be a resolution of events that create a catharsis and closure. Another says that it is more important to leave the reader somewhat frustrated and deny them closure so that there will be discussion and contemplation of the film and the fate of the characters for days or weeks after the final fade out.) A Good Day to Die Hard starring Bruce Willis returning as John McClanewas not a bad movie. It was not expected to be on a par with the original or even the second one, despite the good marketing tag line, “Yippy kayee, Mother Russia .” It may even be a missed opportunity. Bonnie Bedelia has been absent from these films since the second movie, despite seeming to have kept herself up well judging by her role on the latest Parenthood TV series. This can only be the Hollywood adage that a male action star is only as old as his leading lady. So home and hearth here is represented by Lucy McClane the daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is underused here but helps frame the story’s departure, initiation, return format. The movie could have remained more or less the same and kept the same casting of Jai Courtney as Jack or John McClane Jr. but could have easily added in another layer of social relevance that might have been timely with a few more lines of dialogue. Suppose the estrangement of John and his son is not just that the elder McClane spent too much time focused on work and ignored his family. Suppose his son was gay and that was the reason he was in the Russian jail. Can’t help thinking that must have been discussed in story conferences. That might have been a plausible rift for old-school crank McClane. But nobody was calling for that. The movie was attacked in ways that seemed reasonable. Chris Stuckman posted a detailed evaluation of the movie (below) in addition to his usual review. I was impressed by this approach to a practical essay, and the arguments behind it persuaded me not to see Die Hard 5 or A Good Day to Die Hard. I had seen the previous one Live Free or Die Hard opening weekend in a theater partially because Kevin Smith had been cast as “Warlock” an internet genius of sorts. Between movies, there was of course a falling out between Willis and Smith so likely no Warlock. I recently caught the on DVD and although it is not as good as the previous film it is not a disaster either. In fairness I think some of even Stuckman’s points are just not right. I don’t think the director did an awful job. There was a lot of hand-held, which I can live without, but that might have been for expedience since I can hardly believe they let so much of the action be filmed in Russia. In any case, I did not notice the directing except that it seemed to communicate what was intended. Willis was said to have come across as sour throughout the film as if he did not want to be there and that there were no jokes or quips. That turns out to not be correct. I wanted to believe that because of the Smith rift, but the character does pretty much retain his humor. No big laughs, but the attempt is there and even the can scene “Are you American?” “Yeah.” Is a different take of that exchange, which had him sit up and say “Yeah” with a patriotic pride. The scene is more loose and friendly in the actual movie. The claim is also made that the bad guys, who they are and what they are after are confusing. I found this not to be the case. No plot point breakthroughs, but the kind of underhanded characters and the shape-shifter archetypes are represented. The running time is shorter than the past 4 Die Hard flicks. That is one statement I found to be correct. It did not seem to lack much. A couple of deleted scenes definitely could have been put back in, like a fight with some thugs over guns in a trunk. Maybe they felt it diluted the tension and seemed more goofy than the rest of the movie. John Moore (remake of the Omen 2006) has a lot of haters apparently, but this movie is not the mess it is made out to be. I will say that it strained my patience only once, when McClane decides to crash through a guardrail on an overpass to drive across the tops of some vehicles below. And the scene also had the garnish of Lucy phoning his cell and his attempt to avoid telling her the trouble he is in. That is kind of a boldface Hollywooden moment that may enrage people so much that they are not won back. The equivalent moment occurs in the previous film Live Free of Die Hard when he jumps onto a supersonic jet and rides the top of it. That is the kind of insanity where I check out. The original Die Hard and even the first sequel had genuine tension and danger. Die Hard 2 pushed it with the eject-seat scene, but even that is a charming stretch and I was still on the edge of my seat and not ejecting. One other charge against Die Hard 5 is the most significant (and damning if it were true) that John McClane does not care about people in this movie. A clip below shows him stealing a vehicle with supposed disregard for the driver, but in context it breezes by. The person is not really harmed and the priority of moving forward is a little more clear. There is less emotion in this movie, but it is subtle and it is there. Some things still blow up real good and it is still better than a Michael Bay movie. Maybe it is the old principle of wide versus narrow acceptance; Frank Capra used to say that Lost Horizon’s full version played very well in the editing room and small screening room but was considered awful when shown to a full public audience. He figured that when individuals watch something there is a wider range of acceptance for it, even strange ranges of style and that the range becomes narrower the more people are sitting through it. He solved that by trimming out the first few reels of that movie, seeing it then accepted as a hit, and then for home video it was restored. Maybe watching a movie at home or on a portable DVD player on the subway it seems like a better movie and any anger I might feel about absurd stunt scenes is diffused. But ultimately the character of John McClane is best when he is the bug escaping the shoe of a gigantic villain, and less appealing if he starts to believe he is in a movie and therefore invulnerable.

debates: context

Lately I've had a few clashes online over the issue of Mel Gibson. I saw Edge of Darkness and I like it. The man makes good movies. Others are interested in promoting a negative image.

I find whatever the topic if I'm engaged in debate with someone the core of the debate is this: It is their goal to eliminate context and my goal to acknowledge context.

That seems to be a common element in any extended, significant fight with me.

I think some people are looking for something to simplify so it is purely something to from which the unconscious can react. People "love to hate" this or that, and wrap themselves in flags or embrace "umbrella" rules that have been extracted from specific incidents or cases. I have no interest in "umbrella" rules, except to reject them. And example would be: "So, the end justifies the means?" No, that's an umbrella someone is trying to hold over a specific case about which you do have an informed opinion and judgment.

Would you kill this person? Would you condone (blank)?

Yes.

So the end justifies the means?

No.

But. . .

One case at a time. No rule or law needs to be extracted from a particular example.
It might be necessary to keep a law in place that I can imagine breaking or circumventing. Subway passengers may need to be herded further along a platform while at the same time I need to find the most efficient way to get to the section of train which best lines up to the access point or escalator I anticipate at my stop. I would not extract an umbrella rule for everyone that says it is okay to skirt around a barrier. It may not be okay, and we don't want chaos, but this isn't about being a role model. It's about CONTEXT. Some will discard every element of context as self serving rationalization or "excuses," but in a novel for example that is exactly what allows us to accept the mini choices and compromises and accidents and failures and increments that deliver us to a strange and controversial turning point in question. For example:

Human beings love to raise someone up and then tear them down and will be relentless.

This principle has many examples, like Jesus Christ being tortured and killed by (or having this cheered on and/or tolerated by and ordered by) his own community. In Catholic Easter services, that community everyone present and all of us recite the taunts and rejections and the call for crucifixion. Wherever Jesus happened to be born in the world, people would have turned against him. It is understood that this is not a special case against Jews. The high priest Ciaphus has about as much in common with a modern rabbi as Judas has to Steven Spielberg. By the same token, I feel no special need to justify or defend white people who condoned slavery or any number of other injustices or atrocities through history. We barely have a connection to our ancestors let alone people who nominally share the same religion.

This is a tired example, but one made vivid and refreshing in the terrifying depiction by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ in 2004. I have no problem with this movie. Before it was even shot, there was an uproar discouraging even the decision to tell the story.

The inflammatory and loud position is: How dare anyone suggest the crucifixion was painful? How dare anyone suggest that Jews - any Jews - had culpability?
Do I have that right? Is that the outrage? Because the inverse is a fantasy land where a Roman thug is geared up to flog someone and does it gently, or someone is crucified nicely and painlessly, and where Jews are the only human beings in the world blessed with infallible ancestors. And if Jesus were in fact given special mercy, then why? Also, life gives all of us pain and fear and suffering and the story - true or not - has meaning and value to inspire if the person suffering manages to avoid hatred of his persecutors.

Mel chose to tell that story. He told it well and very persuasively.
Then he was persecuted even further and faced resentment over the financial success of The Passion. He still had offers to act in movies and turned down the excellent World Trade Center by Oliver Stone in order to direct Apocalypto. But by the time Apocalypto was in post production there was pressure on Disney to shelve it. Even though that story thread ended happily, at the time Gibson would have been up against the wall. There was enough stress that he took that deadly drink and fell off the wagon. In this case the wagon was traveling very fast on the highway and attracted police and he was drunk enough to mouth off. The police report was leaked to the internet, and because Mel allegedly babbled a few sentences that could be cribbed in memo books, he was firmly established as a sexist for calling one cop "Sugar Tits" and anti-Semitic for saying to the other cop, "Are you Jewish? Jews start all the wars of the world." Again, did I get that correct? Those two manifestos - the pro-sexist philosophy and the Nazi essay? Because this doesn't sound like someone who should be held up as if his fifty years of life are the sum of human hatred. He doesn't quite sound like he should be having beers with the President of Iran.

When David Geffin announced that he would not work with Gibson, one wonders if it was out of disgust with the above quoted example of "anti-Semitism" or because of Mel's alleged "homophobia." One thing for sure is that a lot of people celebrated the idea that Mr. Family Values and Mr. Christian had a scandal and could be promoted as an icon of hatred. As opposed to Icon Productions boss. The naive view accepts the third act good deed of the criminal as proof of his nature and prefer the third act screw up to be more true than a lifetime of compassion, precision and empathy that came before it. In a culture of sound bytes and youtube rants, a blip of human failing ends up being celebrated.

And are they giving him the nice crucifixion or the relentless one complete with taunts and ridicule? I know, even talking about it opens me up to hear "Poor Mel, his movie has to lag behind Avatar. Poor Mel, in its second week Edge of Darkness has made just under 30 million when its production budget was 80 million. Will it stay in theaters? At the time of writing, I don't know. But it's bigger than whether a movie star opens a film strongly. Even if Mel Gibson the man were a jerk after all, the alleged incident being talked about is not the real issue. It is "Look at me, look at me, I'm a God. I'M THE GOD HERE. Meeeee!" It's the average person trying to plug in to something, to play good guys and bad guys, but mostly to say if you lower the stock market value of "gay" then you must be attacked, or if you lower the stock market value of "Jew" then you must be destroyed. The Passion of the Christ attracted the hardcore Christian audience who voted Republican and were against gay marriage and served up a second term for George W. Bush. Those judgments were about on par with taking one's little children to an R-rated movie like The Passion of the Christ. Those things are connected, but they need not be rolled up together as if they are all the same wad of silly puddy. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine movie too, and well attended. The Passion of the Christ did not re-elect George W. Bush. But it's financial success might have been a shot of solidarity in the collective arm of Christians. That fact alone isn't necessarily a negative thing. But if it spilled over into political zeal, it certainly didn't hurt the right wing.

I wish Mel Gibson continued and increased success.

I appreciated The Passion of the Christ, having seen it opening day before the full brunt of the fuss and the debate really caught on. I continue to share it on DVD.

No Jew I know has ever participated in a crucifixion.

Apocalypto is a fine movie deserving of success, a bold vision of someone willing to go to the edge.

Jaguar Paw is a cool Mayan. We like him. Some other Mayans were brilliant in math, science and archetecture and human sacrifice.

I like Jesus, and/or the idea of Jesus that I admire.

I feel gays deserve equality and marriage rights and so on, even though as many of them as us can be irritating twerps and whining cry-babies.

It is unfortunate that George W. Bush got into the White House at all, let alone for two terms.

Michael Moore is vital and interesting. Kevin Smith is one of my favourites and it's a shame he slams Mel and the Passion. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie, but very chatty so maybe that's why he likes it.

I don't care what happened with intoxicated, drunk driving Mel and what might have been said or what slurs were slurred. It's for the best that he was at least pulled over and didn't kill anyone. He was properly driven to the station. At least the cops got that part of their job right. But since context is so often thrown out the window and people react for the sake of reacting and use whatever images and scenes and quotes to serve whatever hot-button they wish to promote it is unfortunate that the police report was not kept more secure. People don't have a "right to know" every detail; not all information is equal, nor is all handling and function of it.
Especially when some people disregard the whole drunk driving issue and scold the alcoholic for his ramblings which are merely the unconscious rages that have been repressed by the civilized business person. Never mind that alcoholics say they came to realize they are "powerless over alcohol" and their lives have become unmanageable, and the man takes a drink and the drink takes a drink then the drink takes the man. What folly to get in the face of the alcoholic telling him to time travel back to before he took the fatal drink and simply will himself not to take it.
And folly is a polite word for it.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts on context while watching a DVD.

Likes, Unlikes and Networking

Don't read this blog if your time is tight or you have to operate heavy machinery. Even though it touches on the core issue of divisiveness in human society being easy and connecting being unnecessarily complicated. I don’t like schmoosing and yet since 1984 I have been directing shorts and since 1988 writing a feature script per year along with anything else I’ve written – to mixed results – and I hear a lot about networking, usually showing up in a class of folks who all want to direct or a venue that requires voices raised above the music. I know enough about myself that I am not a screamer and my ideas are subtle enough that they will lose something at high volume. Sometimes you want people to lean in out of curiosity. I once attended an info meeting for Cine-Coup and there among the crowd sitting peacefully was producer and famous A.D. John Board whose posts I constantly see on Facebook and have posted comments on and liked. I had a moment where I realized I am actually hesitating about saying high to a Facebook friend. I walked up and said hi and what do you think and what are you working on – all generic questions and everything BUT the one thing I was too sensitive to ask. Like this is the wrong place and maybe I don’t know him well enough to ask how his cancer treatment is going with bee stings. Half an hour later, I notice he is surrounded by a huddle of other guys I didn’t recognize all having a serious connective conversation – after all, it’s no secret that he has been promoting his documentary about the bee sting experiment for ages and he is all about promoting homeopathic medicine. So I felt very face-palm about that very dot-nose bit of social awkwardness. The guy I knew John through had just lost a wife to cancer, and even my own late father was tough to talk to about cancer, but for me I think I choke when it comes to getting very personal in public. This doesn’t mean that I can’t discuss an ISSUE and stay on the ISSUE and have it be regardless of the reaction it cause. There is a great axiom, “Disregard the fruits of your actions.” I find that it applies when expressing anything in public. There are any number of nutty reasons why people might either ignore a comment or be incited by it. Provocative dress came up in a Facebook discussion recently, as to whether it provokes. If someone is looking to cull through Facebook numbers, I generally hope I make the cut and don’t get abandoned by someone. Even if I don’t notice for another year. I recently discovered that someone had not only dumped me but blocked me so that people in a discussion were reacting to interjections I could not see. I’d be lying if I said I am not curious to hear how I earned that distinction. I suspect that it was meeting this person back home and having less to say than a talkative mutual friend I was with. It’s a bit like the moment on Seinfeld where Jerry first steps out and leaves George to fill silence with Elaine. Except that I had been in a play with this actress, got along well with her, asked her out, and happened to meet her boyfriend who was involved with film and a cool person, then she went back home and we lost touch. But in person if I have been sitting watching a play or in transit and silent it is an effort to get back up to speed to converse. So maybe I seemed like an aloof dick. So that kind of thing I get. I can settle for guess work. Most of the time I can freely interject into any Facebook discussion or under any post that seems like something hasn’t yet been said about a topic. I expect the same on my own posts. People click like or maybe add an element of information that might be lacking or a quip. I find that there are a few Republicans and conservatives who post inexplicable support for things like Fox News but even then I stay on point if I post and it is about the subject and people should assume that my heart is in the right place. I have family members that are more conservative than myself, and I can clash on the issues and scratch my head over a stance, but still wish only the best. Surely I’m not alone in having friends or family with whom there is disagreement on a few items. One thing I’ve learned especially from looking at youtube and imdb discussions is that if I ever achieve a level of fame I will resolutely focus on that axiom of disregarding the fruits of your actions. As a FAN merely supporting an actor or a writer or a filmmaker, or pointing out a problem or a fact, I have had to fend off some serious vitriol. If you post on youtube, folks, be sure to do so under a different account than the one with which your own videos are uploaded or tediously disabled the ratings on each of your videos. There is really no accounting for taste, and if your main observation is that someone is a moron then it won’t matter how much time you invest reasoning with them. But we want to believe the best. Let’s look for reasons to write each other off. Bruce Willis and Kevin Smith have worked together on two movies, Kevin acting in Live Free or Die Hard and then directing Willis in Copout (original screenplay title “A Couple of Dicks”). Their experience on the latter has been discussed and written about by Smith and there is apparently an irreparable rift. I have all of Kevin Smith’s movies and listen to his podcasts, so if you are a hardcore Bruce Willis fan you can hate me for that. I have many Bruce Willis DVDs as well, so a Kevin fan could choose to hate me for that. Does the presence of one desecrate the land occupied by the other? I dunno. I have many Mel Brooks movies and Spielberg movies, but owning 21 Mel Gibson DVDs would cause some to call me “anti-Semitic” for failing to pitch them. Even though Kevin Pollak and company seem to be anti-Gibson [with side-kick Samm Levine being an Inglorious Basterd (sic) and making Nazi references], I still watch every episode of his Chatshow. He in turn has a good relationship with both Smith and Willis, takes no side, and believes neither would care if he did. People either come to the table with a chip on the shoulder and an axe to grind or they don’t. It has very little to do with what sets them off. Not that I or anyone seeks permission to have an opinion or make a judgement, but I’ll use the word permissive as a place-holder until something better comes along and I’ll say that in a permissive society or sphere we may not see a warning or a gauge of the over-abundance of lying and self-protective politeness. Once we understand that jealousy, judgement, and possessiveness are the current sins that are fashionable to acknowledge and your spouse says be careful on the computer not to open the file with the ex-spouse’s name on it because there are candid photos if you have a problem with that then the expectation might be to pretend you can take the shock and look at the pictures and then have to reign in whatever natural discomfort there would naturally be in seeing those images rather than trying to merely distance yourself from the fact that you followed someone who was replaceable and you may also be replaceable. That might be an extreme case of trying to be politically correct in one’s own home, and it might be a bubble that bursts eventually. There might be a growing detachment or suspicion or it might result in a regrettable violent reflex. Plenty of people go around thinking and projecting “I’m okay, I’m okay, I’m okay. . .” and then the dam crumbles and they are shocked to discover what they are capable of. It is unlikely that Loraina Bobbitt expected to cut off her husband’s penis until one time too many he went to sleep after being abusive. Never let the sun set on anger, they say. So a woman like timid-seeming Ms Bobbitt can be provoked to inexplicable violence, either in self-defence, as venting, or pre-emptive attack or in revenge but judged officially as a crime of passion or a moment of black-out, or temporary insanity. So is the same possible for men? In the 1970’s O.J. Simpson was appearing in movies like the Towering Inferno and Capricorn One and he was mentioned on Mork and Mindy as being the figure of worship in Exador’s new religion, an the eighties found him as an accident prone, unlucky Detective Nordberg in the Naked Gun Trilogy. In the Nineties he was the star of a long-running high-rated reality TV show called The Simspon Trial. Police explained to O.J. about DNA technology and reassured him that they would find out who killed his e-wife Nichole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, so O.J.’s reaction was to jump into a bronco for a long chase ready to commit suicide. This somehow didn’t come up until after the trial was over. Could a paragon of sportsmanship and a hero to many be capable of letting his pride and jealousy and the shock of losing anything in life when he is so used to winning snap and maybe black-out and become a horrible murdering thug? The Jury is actually in on that question, but it remains something difficult for people to process. Could he have anticipated this reaction? If he was mad at his ex, could he have gone for a walk like everyone else does? Maybe walking in Los Angeles is not common, so he might not have considered it. Not to seem glib, but if he can’t stand being around his ex he should have made a point to avoid her home and if he has visitation with his children he could hire someone or ask a fiend to pick them up. He did not have to see Ron Goldman driving his old vehicle or put himself in a position where he might see Ron driving his former old lady. I think if people expected the worst of their reactions there would be fewer eruptions of violence. If John Wayne Bobbit expected as a course of nature that frequent abuse of his wife would inevitably cause her to snap and turn the tables, both abuse and the retaliatory incident would have been avoided and it would have been better for the health of his penis. I would be instantly killed by casual female blog readers if I suggested there was anything Nicole could have done to avoid being murdered by O.J.. I don’t know what kind of regular interaction they had after the divorce. I have neglected as a citizen of Canada to read up on every American celebrity and their tragedies. I suspect that someone in O.J.’s position had not built up enough low points in life to cope with the ups and downs and losses that happen in negotiating a marriage and then the Heisman trophy winner and C-list movie participant could not process the rejection inherent in divorce and the vulnerability of his new intimate enemy possibly having enough dirt on him to fully transform his life’s achievements to shit and infamy. That became a self-fulfilling prophesy as he managed to invert his fame with his own horrible alleged actions. What if someone said to you I am free to go rub that celebrated athlete’s face in poop and mock him and make out with my girlfriend in front of him just because it is my right and because he has no legal recourse against me? Would you advise that this is a wise course, because after all in his shoes you know you have the capacity to take the abuse and you assume that he must be the same? And who knows whether Phil Hartman’s model-pretty wife Brynn was feeling like she wasn’t getting enough attention or energy out of the comedic genius who was known to be quiet in person? Maybe she didn’t need much encouragement to snap and shoot him. He likely did nothing to provoke it and she was known to be unstable on the inside as contrast with her pretty exterior. Dominique Dunn had finished shooting Poltergeist (remember her flipping the middle finger to construction workers) and had started shooting the first V Mini-series when her ex-boyfriend showed up and shot her. The same thing happened to the young star of Pam Dawber’s other hit sit-com My Sister Sam. How do people who were your friends or lovers get it into their heads that they can just go over and kill their object of rejection and obsession ? I don’t know. I suspect it is related to the capacity to compartmentalize some of our pain to survive. That might get mis-filed. And yes, I said “object.” I once had some know-it-all sanctimonious thought-police call me on that, “I’m pretty sure you just compared a person to an inanimate object” when I referred to people abandoning their bikes and being shocked when they go missing and expecting that the world will make sure nobody just TAKES what they want. Whatever else we are, ultimately we are all objects. Light falls on us a certain way, as does shadow, and we can dress for the wrong occasion. Remember the season 5 guest villain on Dexter, Jordan Chase the inspirational seminar guru with the catch phrase “Take it!” who turned out to be running an abduction, rape and torture club? Some people TAKE what they want, for whatever reason, for whatever this bike or that child or adult person represents to them. You may not steal, or deliberately hurt anyone, but you know enough to lock your bike and make sure it can’t be easily clipped, and also not to just leave it in a place where people can take their time picking at it while you hit a bar. The guy I argued with once on Facebook, and a woman who chimed in to insult me, don’t know how to set a separate standard for themselves and recognize that others may not be capable or interested in their concerns. It is true that the sales machine does not care a fig about the people it flatters and if an old fuddy-duddy father says to his daughter, “You’re going out LIKE THAT ??!!!” he is not a fascist nor the enemy of freedom and an anti-feminist nor is be a bad parent on the scale of the mother who brings her daughter to a Hollywood party to meet a famous powerful director and leave her alone with him for a “photo shoot” even if he is well known to have lost a pregnant spouse to a murderous cult and lost his family years before in the Holocaust and is likely a guy (talented and great though he may be) who has no good reason to be left alone with an under-aged girl who just wants to be famous. The over-protective parent might be annoying but they are not the enemy. Is it human nature to look for a fight? Is that the glitch embedded into the species? Whether it is the prehistoric man discovering he can use a bone to kill a rival or an AI system like HAL running a spaceship called Discovery that is shaped like a bone, something is off kilter and running things off course. There is a time to lower your head and shuffle away with the cowed, whipped white Eddie Murphy voice, “Okay.” There is also a time – in fact a great many more times – to stand ground and say no and with the obligatory “with all DUE respect” verbally kick somebody in the crotch. There are some cultures where you can punch your mates in the face and still enjoy a beer together. When you’ve been posting on discussion threads for years, contributing this or that perspective, and occasionally the dissenting view on someone’s posts for at least 5 years it is a little galling for a random piece of flotsam to call you a troll. And yet I don’t engage on a personality level and take the person down. I stick to the point. If someone wants to be abusive, I’d rather see them do it in the open where people can see that side of them. Augmenting an open back and forth with a private message that spews naked insult is childish. I’m not sure there is a consensus about where the line is drawn. Some people burn out their circuits without realize it, especially people who view themselves as progressive and aren’t used to losing an argument. And if they are used to it maybe the strategy (without getting into gender the way a certain stand-up comic did) is indeed to change the subject and make it a personal attack in the hopes of provoking a psychological implosion and try to wear you down or demonize. Expect false conceits to be at the core of it – you appear to have THIS position, which means deep down something is wrong with you. I think how can this argument work in a movie. How can it fit? How can it have consequence? A pair of co-workers are discussing Sinead O’Connor being cited as the influence of Miley Cyrus’ wrecking Ball video, O’Connor being badgered by media for a comment, and her deciding the comment can take the form of an article she may as well write herself and that article taking the form of an open letter, because it would indirectly reference her either way. All very logical. Then one of the office guys notices a female co-worker is in ear-shot, and dressed in skimpy attire that seems out of place in a geeky office. He decides to pipe up, “I think the O’Conner letter is slut-shaming, and it creepy me out. She seems to be saying women are responsible for being raped if they dress too provocatively.” “What is provocative?” the other guy asks. “What is being provoked?” “Nothing,” says kissy-face. “Here is some math for you – rapes caused by scanty dress equal zero, rapes caused by flirty or seductive behaviour equal zero, rapes caused by cock teases equal zero.” “That doesn’t sound like math,” quips the other guy. “It sounds like smug bumper sticker campaigning.” Kissy-face has a meltdown and yells incoherently at the other guy and knocks over a chair. He turns to the scantily clad young lady in the room and says it is quitting time and she can she can go home whenever she likes and nice dress and sorry about the discussion which males should not have a voice in anyway. He goes off on a tangent about feminism and accuses the other male of not being a feminist. The other male says, “Feminism is irrelevant in the western world. It’s an umbrella term. I don’t look down on out boss at head office just because she is female. Most people enjoyed 9 to 5 and still watch it and Working Girl (the workplace comedy with Melanie Griffith, not the one apparently about a hooker) and we pretty much agree with equal pay. I’m an ally on many of those kinds of reasonable things. That doesn’t mean I have to hold up the umbrella term feminist and ask myself whether each new issue or position is feminist in order for it to be right. My position on whether a rural doctor should be forced to expand her practice to include performing abortions even if she sees it as murder would not be considered a feminist position. My opinion as to whether two lesbians can get married and adopt would however be considered feminist. Having an umbrella term allows you to demonize me for not fitting all the arbitrary criteria of it. And the jury is still out as to whether dressing sexy attracts the attention of creeps and whether standing at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere is pressing your luck. I have sisters and I’ve heard them and their friends laugh proudly about who they will frustrate at the bar. I’m saying frustrate the wrong person and it is Russian roulette.” “I have control of myself. I’m not being caused to rape just because a woman is hot,” says the kissy-face p.c. guy. “We’re not talking about you or me, “ says the intelligent other guy. “We are speculating about a CRIMINAL. Almost every law exists because of the FUCK-UPS and the stupid and the morally weak. We can find out what sets a rapist off if we can stand to talk to him. But we will be too busy patting ourselves on the head for being superior beings. I have every right to compare a rapist to a hyena and say it’s a bad idea to get out of your vehicle and go pet one. Cee-Lo was accused of putting ecstasy into his ex-girlfriend’s drink, the master of comedy who I won’t name here – a beloved figure – was accused of using cold medication to knock out a woman so he could feel her up. We don’t know if any of that is true but enough people are open to the possibility because they know even a nice person’s head can split open and The Thing can spring out frothing at the mouth. You can be high on drugs or in self-righteous politically correct propaganda. “ “Ignore him, “ kissy-face says to the sexy looking female colleague. She waves goodbye and heads out the door. Both guys steal a glance at her ass. They don’t learn until an hour later when the police arrive that she was brutally raped in the parking lot by a clean-cut rape-culture night-clubber who remains at large. He may have chosen her because she was alone, or maybe because she was in a mini-skirt and stooped to pick up her car keys when she dropped them. If a medical professional ever discovered that his erection took a critical amount of blood from his brain and he had no control as his baser instincts took over, that professional would likely keep it to himself/herself rather than be demonized for a suggestion that does not calm and reassure people that everything they do is A-OK the way most of their input does – from advertisers and lobby groups trying to seduce them every waking hour. The reality is that we share the same dangers in our society and nobody wants a loved one to suffer the attacks that statistics assure us are inevitable. We end up seeing a video Facebook chooses not to take down, where a guy ostensibly angry at his wife for cheating chops her head off, we hear of girls getting splashed with acid in the face for saying no to a marriage proposal, we hear of date rapes and seduction seminars preaching which buttons to press to close the deal on sex. And some people still have the audacity to fucking lecture someone like me for saying so-called Slut Walk is a joke? Of course it is. The media, the music industry, everyone who decides what is cool for the young, the prison culture for example which has contributed some fashion statements, have no sense of consequence. It is over-stimulation, and more so now that we have more distractions. It is all wrapped up with a “you’re okay” rubber stamp. Someone’s dress may not be what causes a guy to snap. Paul Bernardo and Karla looked for “virgins” but that had more to do with age than attire. A “slutty” clad or dressed-down girl may be the virgin just feeding off of sexual tension as flattering, and the girl who has partied heavily, been to gang-bangs and used abortion as birth control more often than condoms may look like the quaint, quiet girl next door. Like the old Eddie Murphy routine about girls who, “raise hell and then move somewhere else and get shy.” But maybe there are safe behaviours and unsafe habits. Maybe there is a street-proofing and failure to street-proof even when people are not kids anymore that a stranger might steal or lure into a car. But in order to practice defensive living the way people know to practice defensive driving it might mean behaving AS IF we have some responsibility. For the way we are perceived and the way we provoke. I mean can you be provocative without provoking? Funny language, ours. By the same token, despite being civil I can be called a troll because I don’t march in lock-step with the popular misconception. When that happens I have to detach and accept that some people believe their own hype and the flattery that comes with being part of the target demographic. People who are still using terms like “Slut Walk” and “slut-shaming” will campaign to get rid of the word, but a) I don’t hear a lot of guys – especially adults – calling women slut. I remember Bill Murray calling Dustin Hoffman “you slut!” in Tootsie as one of the biggest laughs. I’m just as likely to use the antiquated word slattern. You know who does use the word – women, against each other. You know who polices who gets categorized as “that kind of girl” ? Girls. If a female is reputed to be easy, guys won’t launch into a lecture or insults. They’ll just form a line-up. Who sets the “double standard” for whether sexual history is a problem or a benefit? Again, a woman might choose a guy who is confident. If he got that way by getting lucky a lot, so be it. She likely will accept it. A man may or may not require confidence to find a woman attractive. It is not a deal breaker. He can wait for confidence to develop, just as a woman might be patient about the “bad boy” she has fallen for and she might believe she can reform him or tame him. So being “good” or “nice” is something a woman doesn’t demand of a guy to date him. So again a guy has absolutely no incentive to be a virgin other than having no game or no interest in the women available. So again even the term “double-standard” is kind of a joke. It projects on people a deliberate system or intention when there is no actual artificial structure there at all. It is lobby-group-think or magazine-think. It is the quality of thought that goes into devoting one’s University thesis paper to whether and why Batman and Robin are gay, Sherlock Holmes and Watson are gay, and how Anne of Green Gables is a lesbian. If it makes people feel good about themselves, then it is not a total waste of time. But it is also not scientific or logical or credible. There has been in this blog the habit of limiting gender to what is now called “binary” terms. The GBLTQ- and-sometimes-Y alphabet soup of human diversity should factor in and may even support the overall drift. The reason I think it’s great if a transsexual or transgender person wins a beauty contest is that it subverts the beauty contest and undermines it in the eyes of people who love that sort of thing. When the Huffington Post declared that Gloria Steinem has the last word on the Sinead-Cyrus debate and the issue of whether media exploits sexuality too much and youth and looks, she left it at Miss America offering a valuable financial reward and paying for a winner’s education so why not take advantage. But the funders of Miss America and other pageants could easily put their money into other enterprises if putting people through college is the ultimate goal. There are other accomplishments and fields of endeavor that could win someone a prize besides posing in a swimsuit and giving generic answers about world peace. Gloria doesn’t have the last word. There might not be a last word with any issue that has so many moving parts. I am only thankful that I was able to write this one on somebody else’s time. I will get to the bottom it eventually and crack the formula of humorless, arbitrary argument. This is the kind of crap taking up valuable real estate in my consciousness. If I wanted to complicate this I could factor in cultures where it is downright shocking to see bare skin or faces for that matter, and then remember the refrain from the days right after 9/11/2001, "If we stop living the way we do, the terrorists win." I don't know if rapists can easily be traded out for terrorists or vice versa in that idea. That would mean dress as provocatively as you like or the rapists win, and by extenion the patriarchy and puritanical system win and control you. But then while this catch-phrase was going around there was also a crack-down on airport security and a lot of unofficial profiling, certain individuals on the Most Wanted list, a couple of wars got going, and behavior was modified - there was even an additional umbrella over it all "the war on terror," against an abstraction. So if we buy into that old saw then a "war on rape" would have to partly be fought looking past what an individual or most individuals will do or would be capable of and it could be considered an ugly natural element. Then people can start going for walks with bomb-sniffing dogs ready to bite balls off. And maybe wearing something bulky or army fatigues. But pretending that nothing sets off or attracts unwanted attention is just crazy. It's not "blame the victim." It's acknowledge the related elements. Not a fight or a bickering match that can be won in a Facebook thread where it really is still about all-is-well and freedom and choice are the buzz words and not buzz-kill words.

Cinema Spin: John Carpenter's Halloween

The opinion of a movie critic is only marginally more interesting than the gossip and lobby group marketing that crowds the entertainment pages. Any accurate observation is likely to be an obvious one, and sometimes the most banal or tedious drama can be heaped with praise merely because it will not satisfy the masses and therefore one will seem “better than” to prop it up. The reverse principle is at work when it comes to the ghetto that sci-fi, fantasy, action-adventure and horror (genres that are the genres that we call “genre fare” as a catch-all) usually find themselves in as a stigma. This is partially enforced by critics who don’t want to be caught elevating something fun and/or would rather be writing an essay on social ills and speculating on how the underclass is controlled by its entertainment. It is also enforced by actors who want to be the special effect, the element that has a disproportionate amount of focus, as opposed to the technique of the director and his/her team. If an actor is bouncing off the walls with personality (Silver Linings Playbook) or suffering drug withdrawal or falling off the wagon, it likely will be in a story that has a meandering plot but it will be forgiven because the director gave them freedom. Of course actors will talk up work that is personally satisfying, but that doesn’t mean the movie is satisfying. And if all the director needs to do is stand back and cover the acting epiphany in a two-shot, an over-shoulder, and a single on each actor that might very well be enough to earn a Best Director nomination or Best Choice of Subject Matter. I don’t begrudge Steven Spielberg his Oscars for directing Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan, but arguably a less talented director could have covered those scripts and snagged the Oscar; Had he won for Jaws, E.T. or Raiders of the Lost Ark, then I would have rejoiced because then it would be more clearly the director’s contribution to the impact of the movie and not the inherent gravitas of the subject matter. John Carpenter’s Halloween often plays out in masters because they didn’t have time for coverage. This is only hurt in one scene Jamie Lee Curtis notes in the DVD commentary – where a close-up of her disgust that she has the knife in her hand would have helped explain why she tosses it away, since for years audiences have grumbled about the seeming convenience and illogic of not keeping the knife handy. It wasn’t logic, it was emotion – revulsion. Close-ups can be over-used, and in small-screen the reasonable fear is that the perfect master shot will be disposed of for bland close-ups of faces and that in comedy the dialogue or sustained tension or foreground-background contrast may be lost with ham-fisted close-ups and cut-ins telling the audience what is important. Halloween gains more than it loses from having very little coverage. It is intended to be seen on as large a screen as possible, and some people can’t be bothered. On a cell-phone video, a wide image that might have been grand and epic ill seem like puny actors dwarfed by scenery. The seriousness of this is that the grammar of cinema that had evolved through Hitchcock and Spielberg has little value to some producers whose understanding is not much different than that of an average movie-goer or viewer who see a movie purely because they believe the actor is the quality control factor. I would even go so far as to say that the tradition of marking progress of a shooting day in terms of eights of a page of script covered is misleading. Just because the film team “got” the page content from one camera does not mean they can revert to it as a patch if they don’t have a beat or line or special shot from the angle the director needs. The frame is part of the communication, not merely the conveyance of it. Here is a controversial statement, but I’m not inviting debate. I know there are cinema sacred cows. I’m just going to say it as I say most things, like I am pulling the pin out of a grenade and throwing it into a room I am not in and running away: I don’t think of Robert Altman as a master, God rest his soul. His back-up director on A Prairie Home Companion Paul Thomas Anderson demonstrates more ambition and facility with the tools of directing in his own films than Altman. To the extent that when I see amusing scene transitions in Short Cuts I am not sure they came from the director. Maybe they were in the script. His more verbal and ramshackle movies, miking even the extras and keeping the coverage loose rather than “manipulating” the audience get by on charming actors, improvisation and subject matter. If you want to see what he is made of watch The Gingerbread Man, a thriller where there is no place to hide – the sort of genre that a director’s director should embrace. Or see Popeye, a movie where realism is not especially helpful. The actors are very game, but the movie is too cluttered. A pair of set-piece moments like the wrestling match and the squid-punching are amusing enough that they might have been shot by a second unit. If an award winning Robert Altman (say Gosford Park with story co-written written by Bob Balaban despite being somewhat stogie) were assigned to Robert Rodriguez to direct with the same cast and budget I have no doubt that Los Hooligan would make the better movie. Altman, however, would not have been able to direct From Dusk Til Dawn. John Carpenter’s Halloween has maintained some status and respect in comparison to the sequels, reboots, remakes and imitators. It plays as formal and elegant. But not without annoying detractors chiming in. There was a Facebook link asking if Halloween is still scary after all these years, on the authority of a screening for ten “Millennials.” If these are people born on or after the millennium, then in the year 2013 they were no older than 13, which may or may not be too young. They can’t be expected to champion their father’s favourites from when he was 13. They are likely to dismiss the shooting style of most films from the seventies and eighties, as opposed to the clean video-game graphics look of a digital movie. It is heartbreaking that some people under 20 don’t realize how inferior the Star Wars prequels are to the original trilogy. But I digress. The truth about the reputation of John Carpenter and late producer co-writer Debra Hill’s Halloween is that the first onslaught of critics got it wrong and then the Andrew Sarris of the Village Voice give the movie proper credit and recognized its Hitchcock homage and the care with which it was made and this caused the other critics to remarkably recant. I don’t want to slam a Toronto International Film Festival programmer, but Cameron Bailie published a smarticle in Now many moons ago trying to retro-spin Halloween and the career of John Carpenter with the idea that Andrew Sarris was wrong and the other critics were brainwashed by him and the movie is really not anything special. The take-away from that is “Cameron Baillie doesn’t like John Carpenter and hates Halloween.” His piece appeared to be written for smug types who have not even seen the film, the most serious cinephiles who can turn the buzz of a great flick into the doldrums of discussion. The official consensus remains that John Carpenter’s Halloween is a well made and entertaining flick. If any outstanding movie happens to occupy the genre ghetto, it has an uphill battle with the “opinions of record.” It is actually a remarkable testimony that so many critics flip-flopped after Andrew Sarris showed them the error of their ways. Halloween had been cited by alarmists and arm-chair politicians looking to scapegoat Hollywood for violence or a puritanical view of women but Carpenter and Debra Hill have repeatedly slapped those assumptions down. The victims of Michael Meyers in this movie get killed because they are not aware and are buy thinking about other distractions. And Jamie Lee Curtis has made the point that in the supposed “exploitation films” she has made in her years as horror “scream queen” her characters were smart and fought back against adversity.