A Conversation with Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola

Coppola's quote @ 33:45 about "dictatorial" directing and how that means

fighting the tendency of crew to do the rote thing is the best part of this interview

with him and Scorsese. Makes a lot of sense.  It's the difference between

getting a job done and getting THE job done.

Two Van Tuesday

Film-making memory. This falls into, "the hand of Providence protecting me from what I want." It can be the smallest of issues that allows Murphy's Law to enforce itself in the demonic details of life, the o-ring that is frozen just enough to change size and let gas escape when heated at launch time. Friends were making what was then a Calling Card short film and the director asked me to help out for its five day shoot ostensibly as continuity but generally as "an ally on the set" which might be a term picked up from Buskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. I mentioned that all but the Tuesday would be okay, and that an actress we knew was moving and I had agreed to help her on that day and this was understood so Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday were the days I agreed to. I also helped in the days leading up if there was input requested, and also ended up helping on a secondary shoot and with a sound recording day weeks after this main week. But despite mentioning the Tuesday prior commitment a couple of times and even during the Monday shoot on location and even being razzed about it as to my reason for helping this woman move, my friend the director was on the phone with me Monday night and seemed rattled that I actually did mean that I was intending to stay on course and help someone load and unload a moving van Tuesday instead of standing-up the actress and doing the more fun option of hanging out and filming and then just resume with the production on the Wednesday. They had my Polaroid camera (this was 1999) and continuity papers, and plenty of advance notice. To this day, there have been many of opportunities I've said no to just because filmmakers don't HEAR or have selective memory about availability and they believe "in for a penny, in for a pound" and that all else doesn't exist once a production starts. In hindsight, I would have let down the girl because she ended up having a few people help her. That Tuesday was spent riding in a van with the other helpers. I have an over-developed sense of commitment. When I checked back in with my director friend, he decided that the person who replaced me can stay with his project for the rest of the week. I learned later, however, that nothing had been shot that day anyway because they spent it traveling in their equipment van to a location and then finding it unsuitable and returning so the producer could find a different house. I missed a day of riding in a van because I was riding in another van. Had I relented on Monday night, and stayed on to (I thought) indulge in my preference of movies over being a mover, I'd likely not have been accused of disloyalty by the actress and no harm would be done; I would be climbing out of the film van and quipping something like, "Well it's a good thing I blew off my other commitment," If I wanted to be a dick. To top it off, the A.D. from the shoot, a young woman who seemed nice enough for much of the first day, who did not know me at all, apparently had a lot to say. When I picked up my Polaroid, I got the sense that a LOT of spin-doctoring had begun. My frequent runs to the washroom were the result of water pills treating cranial hypertension which had caused me to collapse months before and had damaged my optic nerves. I had recovered enough balance that by summer I was pushing myself a bit. I recall a lot of little things, like when the art department guy didn't have impressive enough prop groceries I suggested stuff from the craft services table and helped stuff the bags. I had thought the day had gone well. There was a little edge from her when it came time to take a Polaroid of the cast and crew. It that photo still exists, I am not in it because I am shooting. The A.D. offered to take the photo but when I explained a subtle framing issue to compensate for, she handed it back. Oddly, the photo was intended for our hosts at the location and I don't remember giving it to them. The A.D. ended up riding in the same vehicle as me on the way back into town, and there was a subtle bit of mustard when she remarked generally about how people should be enthusiastic about filmmaking or not involved - not that she would have been talking about me. Her only hint of anything "negative" would be that when she asked me about something math-related about continuity I had nothing because in any other continuity gig I had I didn't have to add up film footage, only monitor each shot and take that was done. I had thought the camera crew took care of that and I only noted exposure and lens info. But even then despite being a little sun stroked by the end of the day I am certain I was purely polite with her and only got wind of her dark side weeks later in post-mortem chats. I had mentioned that I was not strictly a continuity person and was only there to help out as a former classmate and friend of the three key crew, and that was only mentioned so that I was not passing myself off as anything more. Apart from my own projects, I have avoided doing continuity since. I suspect that much of that A.D.'s attitude about me might have resulted from my re-statement Monday night that I was not due to come in Tuesday. She likely fanned the flames of frustration my friend felt at that point. When I see a shot from that first day, I think of it as mostly positive snap-shots and the film itself turned out very well and it should have gotten more exposure. Given what was known at the time, there is a certain inevitability to it but not any predictability. There was no obvious gravity point in that case study. People frequently come onto a project for a day, and I think they actually used a few continuity people that week. I put all of my cards on the table in advance. Undisclosed expectations are generally the root of conflict on this kind of thing. I don't usually change course when I've decided something, and would have no reason to expect that a known open shift would not be filled and would be left open with the expectation that "don't mean" that I am going to honour an agreement to do something menial as a prior commitment. I was a volunteer. Perhaps the only one on the set. I didn't lose them a day or put them over budget. The person who did was chastised but never shut out as a friend. It took me years to let myself off the hook and realize that I was taken for granted. And the undisclosed expectations were not mine. This kind of anecdote I think might be of use in building teams and airing any concerns during the early phase where people are buzzed about a project and just happy people are willing to show up. #GuardedOptimism.

(Don't) Consider the Source

I've come to (for now) the conclusion that one of the most damaging axioms to meaningful discourse is, "Consider the source." How many of those handy turns of phrase are used to shut something up with a few words or lead us into distraction over evaluation of something external rather than using on a question personally and inwardly? Unless the question at hand is of the nature of climate change or dangers of cigarettes where a source of information or disinformation may well be funded by Big Tobacco or Big Oil and its likely reason to exist is to provide a minority report that can be cited as reasonable doubt in the murder of the planet, we will be in danger of writing long blog sentences like this one. Think of all the people you know and who gets benefit of the doubt because they are on-side and who is disregarded or shouted down because he, she or the famous they uttered a word or idea on the issue at hand or another one entirely with which you disagreed. Think of how many people do love their parents and grandparents but constantly disagree on issues that may be generational or on which a stand may be habitual or on which so much time and commitment and sacrifice has been spent in spreading this belief or living this life that they feel it would be embarrassing to incorporate new information or flip-flop or betray agreements they have signed in order to mollify someone or maintain a connection or funding. How many people will fight to the death over the reputation of their most ancient ancestors whom they have never met but will flatly reject their parents' beliefs, taste in movies, or a business they have built and wish to pass along? "The sins of the father are visited upon the son" may be reportage of the way people do behave, but it is also nonsensical. If I am raised Catholic, does that mean anyone has a fool-proof code key to my psyche and voting habits? If I watch The Walking Dead, am I cool with America's Second Amendment, let alone the paradoxical idea that an a constitution and its amendments should never be amended with the introduction of new and evolving information? If someone is Portuguese should that person feel guilt for ancestors who started slavery? If someone is of the African tribe that aided the Portuguese in betraying and luring and trapping fellow Africans, must that blood be on them? Forgive the rhetorical questions, because after all it is easy to dismiss as rhetoric. Or the Pawnee who are shown in most movies about First Nations people as the "bad guys Indians" -- must their descendants live that down? I say in those cases there is no debt to repay. Does a country - an institution or general banner organization - that has wronged people under a previous administration have to account for that? Yes. Japanese internment camps during World War 2? I don't know if the compensation is timely enough to help anyone involved or if there could be reparations for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki considering the current understanding we get from Oliver Stone's recent series on hidden history (namely that Russians had already settled any threat of Japan military at the time and the bombings were not as necessary an evil as we have been led to believe). If I as an overweight person with type two diabetes tell you that eating vegetables and regular exercise are essential to keep fit, will that assertion be any less true than if it comes from someone slender? If I own about 23 Mel Gibson movies, and a boxed set of 30 Rock starring Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan, there are people who will take that as proof that I espouse the beliefs that have been attributed to them and that I am an "apologist" for this or that view or package deal of opinions. There are people who think that a word can be extracted like DNA to reproduce you in full. And this is in a culture of constant agitation, where the drama or the hot-button or the bottom-feeding element is taken for granted as necessary to get hits or clicks or make it "a thing." Every news item on line is likely to offer an opportunity to feel you are venting and weighing in, all the while providing your e-mail so you can get more spam and alerts from people who seek to refute your declaration of a favourite colour. That way, more clicks, more log-ins, more hits. Because they are both "social issues," does abortion have a damn thing to do with gay marriage, much less be the result of it? And will knowledge of one's distaste for one tell you his or her attitude about the other? Funny thing about rhetorical statements - people forget that art and even persuasion is about asking questions more than answering them. If the answer comes from you, it feels more organic and valid. Considering the source is ultimately a carry over from top-down structure of leadership. Who was the first to say "Consider the source" ? If Jodie Foster is friends with Mel Gibson, and if the highest paid actor currently Robert Downey Jr. has been a public supporter of him at his lowest ebb, how does that fit in to the way the media pushes and pulls and ultimately distracts people with side issues and sub-issues? How does that become a sound-byte or a tweet you can get behind? If Sinead O'Connor has dealt with sleaze-bags and she answered a question relentlessly posed to her about Mylie Cyrus causing a stir in a video ostensibly inspired by her own work yet directed by a pornographer and alleged rapist, why is anyone imposing upon that a discussion about "slut"-shaming ? And is a man defending Sinead therefore to be viewed as anti-women or anti-equality? And is the director of Wrecking Ball in any way motivated by your positive self-worth and freedom ? And are his detractors just party-poopers or zealots or date-rapists because they presumably seek to control girls? It's exhausting. There was an amusing discussion on a chat show I follow on-line in which a side-kick I won't name made a cheeky remark pretending to renounce the ignorant stance that gay men are automatically child molesters. He said essentially as his capper, "Straight men can molest young boys." His host then said, "How does that happen?" That kind of thing is bold, and should not be viewed as a threat to the earnest effort to educate parts of the world who mistakenly lump all creeps into a "gay" generalization. But you know the LIBERAL comics involved in that exchange would be enemies of the week to some people merely for suggesting that adult male sexual contact with underage boy does not sound like a heterosexual act. Even though I have heard otherwise reasonable and well-meaning friends of mine argue the other extreme. They might mean that they count persons IDENTIFYING as straight, but strangely when a movie star says that he is gay the true believers in the underground will not accept that answer because they determine which acts or words reveal the most amusing truth that will get the clicks and hits. If you told me the debates I've had on Facebook or other websites I would get mired in, I wouldn't believe it. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Terry Richardson, Rob Ford, and a Pope who actually knows what he is talking about, I wouldn't have believed you. And in my disbelief I would have to demonize you and block you and fill in the blanks of who you are. That way, I can procrastinate in writing my masterpiece screenplay about communication. If you are a Star Wars fan you can visit starwars.com and look at the many sub categories for discussion posts and think that world religions are no more divisive. I'm sure I can find someone to argue in defence of the prequels so that I can disregard them. Fact is that anyone can be just plain wrong on something.

Low Noon

There are two people in as many years who have been frienemies from the filmmaking side of my life intersecting with the other side of my life I don't freely blog much about, the job-job side that is almost enough to pay my rent. I once thought it was a amusing quip to end a bio calling myself writer-director-security guard. I have what I'm told is a very good HDV camera, two choices of good editing software on a laptop that is "in the shop" and a new MacBook Pro that seems to take so much getting used to I want to return it. Since 2009 I have been able to make some strong shorts, but have fallen short of the goal and only made a few and not with the preparation and commitment from all which is needed to do it right. I also have to improve my game, despite an aversion to even the word "game" itself. I have improved my writing and have been able to refine some old stuff and I'll be shooting a lot more this year. But a life is like a body where all could be well except the broken pinky finger which ends up being your main focus while it is injured and untreated. //////////////////// I was posted at a bank on Monday. Overheard conversations had been about the Oscars the night before and the prospect of Toronto Crack Mayor Rob Ford appearing as a guest of Jimmy Kimmel. I am wearing a yellow vest with security on it while standing in and around an ATM vestibule and often outside in the cold having forgotten my proper winter uniform hat. Along comes a woman to the door who seems familiar but her mouth is covered by a collar and without the wide, pleasant eyes you see from her on a stage or in 2004 when I first met her she did not register as anyone specific. Despite wearing the same jacket, boots and pants she had on when attending a recent film screening by a mutual friend, I didn't immediately think she was _____ until she was opening a door beside me and entering the vestibule. Then I thought she had plenty of approach time to recognize me, and I stand out, and unlike most of the people who pass me on their way in or out (complete strangers) there was no hello of any kind. That in a way could confirm that this was the person I suspected. I actually mentioned an issue I had with her a few blogs back. There would be no danger of her chancing to read it, because she did not accept either of my FB requests back in 2008 or so. At the screening I went out of my way to say hi by name as I was leaving, but I think she ignored my hello and wave the first time. Fair enough. She would have been paying respects to our mutual friend who had achieved a feature. But I mean people usually have periphery, and most respect the Godfather rule of "keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer" even though I've often thought that axiom doesn't seem practical. It boils down to a chill that was not present back in 2004. After seeing a play of hers last year, I made the effort to invite her into a project. But there may have been a mind f**k there. I've come to a certain conclusion after much reflection that in her case the eyes are not at all a window to the soul. There can be an aesthetic to a person's eyes up close that may persuade that there is a soul, but these are tools of most charismatic people. You don't know who someone is until they are frustrated or want something or have made a judgement based on misinformation. I don't hang very often. I have made room for some events and participation between whatever shifts of work I am thrown into. So "the hang" that is s important with building groups may often be forgone. So if someone wants to put a spin on anything, it likely will be outside of my sphere. I am certain that the first hint of aloofness at a screenwriting circle meeting might have been just before she shared her theory that I am to blame for a troop falling apart. /////////////// Oddly, the first from that group who met me in a uniform standing outside a bank had softened since that group was dissolved and he had apologized. It occurred to me mentally that this would have been the time to respond with a "me too" or something, but since it was not the case and I was not wrong in questioning the way funds were to be allotted for his own project alone after being raised ostensibly for four unknown scripts to be voted on. . . I had said my piece and suffered through the hot seat for that. I still say that was a cordial and psychologically relaxing chance meeting and it's good to know there is no ongoing resentment there. ////////////// But in a cold March Monday at noon 2014, as I stood waiting for this person to leave who had not met my eyes, I had my hat off and there was no chance that I would be mistaken for anyone else. Had she looked at me I'd have to have waved. But as a rule I don't stare of hover while someone is approaching a bank machine. Though I did think of her as someone who had badmouthed me and caused me some strain, I would have been polite and in fact intended to croak out her name and say hi just as a human being, but my unconscious must have overridden that impulse and would not allow me to speak. In my gut, I felt that without give and take I would be a puppy chasing after someone who has kicked me. ***********@#!%$^&#********* Even though 11 years ago I had a producer drop in on a job-site who proved to be my worst antagonist, that person at least knew of my other job in advance. But even she was coming from an "office boss" kind of background wanted to see the director she was working with in a more menial setting. (So it must have frustrated that person when she lost the battles to come.) ***********@#!%$^&#********* This current frienemy, someone with several Facebook friends in common and who had been a presence in some organizations with which I was involved, clearly didn't know me well enough to greet me as a person and likely would have felt the uniform I wore was an elephant in the room or that it meant I was a phoney posing as a filmmaker the rest of my life. But that is on her. Maybe she thought I was embarrassed and it was on me to put on a hyper-enthused show. But that decision was removed from me by whatever controls the ability to make myself speak. Right or wrong, like a movie audience, I stood my the vestibule windows and watched her leave. There was a little spring in her step that seemed acted. ////////////////// The whole time I'm thinking this is creepy. But you know, here is an actress seeing someone who makes films in what may be a vulnerable state and she does have the ability to look past it and diffuse any real or imagined tension but she chose not to. It's so outside of my nature to be rude that my inner monologue screams out the script, "Hey Ms E_____. Is this your area?" But no. I can pretend non-verbal cues are in the imagination, and that the chill in my nerves to any past exchange is just my imagination. But apparently my central nervous system wouldn't let me be disingenuous. Of course I get thinking I failed the love-thy-enemy challenge yet again. However, any time I have forced by voice to work it is like an e-mail that doesn't have to be filtered through human interaction and visual counterpoint. //////////////// So all it well as I turn this over in my head and wonder why today I failed to greet friendly someone who merely failed to greet me friendly. I end up leaving the subway train after work and visiting a the Palmerston library which was a familiar place when I lived in the Annex between 1997 and 2003. I left with a couple of DVDs, Shock Treatment, and John Carter, neither of which I had yet seen, and a book I used to have from which only the dust cover survives a loan to a friend, "Further Along the Road Less Travelled" by M. Scott Peck. Something besides free newspapers to read on the bus. At least until my eyelids get heavy. Spiritual self-help. But I had been intending to re-read it every time I tidied my apartment and fount the useless cover. I can't be completely cynical about the non-events of the day. They would not make much of a pitch for a movie. I have more positive things to consider. A couple of people I know have had screenings of their features these past weeks, one of which retains writing I did for it while at college between 1991 and 1994. Another friend phoned after reading my draft of a script she commissioned. She read it on the plane to Vancouver and called me a few times to thank me and discuss it. And it is one of those discussions where comments are specific and things were actually read and noticed. So maybe I have that kind of thing as a counterpoint these days. Maybe I don't have to hump every leg begging to be liked. Some fall away. Someday I'll have memoirs worth folding together into a book, assuming books exist then. As long as I keep paying my rent more or less I still have a horizon of accumulated full stories, drafts, and other crap to refine and shoot and beg and coerce people to sit through.

Jimmy Kimmel visit with Mayor Rob Ford

Night before interview - skit about showing up too early 1 2 3 4 How interested is he in the film industry here? Is he not prejudiced against gays but pulling the rainbow flag from City Call while the Olympics is held in a backward part of the world? And is e wise to do that while claiming that the media and creative types are perverts and their work luxuries? At least Kimmel presented some straight-talk and flat questions, even if they didn't seem to be processed. The laughing has t stop before election day or the once-unlikely prospect of his "Ford Nation" supporting him just might happen.

Talent Drivers - Trailer

Directed by Michael O'Hara, this is a sample for an upcoming project.

It can be voted for on IPF (www.ipf.ca )  Chilly day helping out on this;

played an "A.D" in cut shots, but ended up as an "E.T."