internet

A Walk in the Park

Still Having Flashbacks: Part One

If I kept busy I might have less time to stew over the would-coulda-shoulda where a more aggressive or enraged proactive choice might have been made. We hear a lot about scandals involving abuse by successful movie people and I can't help thinking what if the "sexual" aspect was removed and there could be a devastating scandal for people simply being assholes? Then I might have some war stories and a few names to toss into the abyss. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ed was a guy who didn't show up to help edit a Super 8 assignment in college while I waited in the library, so after I ended up having to edit it myself he snuck into the post-production class and removed my reel from the crew bin and arbitrarily snipped frames from either side of each splice to render it unwatchable before handing it in to the instructor for screening the next morning to my horror. That act of vandalism left me shaken. I had directed that short and had it fine cut. One frame either way made the difference between "Hey, cool!" and "Huh ???" I certainly complained at the time but I'm haunted by the irrational idea that I could have campaigned to have that vandal removed from the course. But if I were to go back in time of course the smart thing would be to take the film reel home with me and hand it in to the teacher at the screening instead of following the letter of the plan and putting it were it was vulnerable - with the editing equipment in out crew bin. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The next year, Ed again had too much to say about a documentary I directed. I had written and storyboarded it in order for the crew to access equipment and then someone else was allowed to direct because of a rule at the moment against writer and director being the same person. But then that director was absent for medical reasons and the crew asked me to step in. I followed my storyboards which included a swish-pan-transition between a police station and a Guardian Angels office (this gimmick is seen on Batman or multiple times in Some Like it Hot - a fast pan away from something and a fast pan to something else can be cut at the blurriest frame to make it seem like a single pan). I nicely asked Ed (who was "camera operator" if he knows what a swish pan was and he was affronted and said "Yes," and then I could tell by his movement that he did not so I again politely took a stab at it and made the shot. The next day the other director was doing the office of the Guardian Angels and I did have to question her on one issue - reminding her that the pan was necessary as part of the swish transition and again I was able to get that done. The director also asked me - in addition to the storyboards - to type up an editing guide so the editors knew the order of shots and any special instructions. The editor accepted this and said he understood and had my number if there were any other questions. Then we show up in Post class and he screens a rough cut that doesn't even use my swish transition but uses Ed's meandering wrong pan and I have egg on my face instead of vindication. So I ask out Crew producer Sean if I can cut back in the unused transitions and he agreed. The next day is like a wake - busybodies are saying I have transgressed by re-editing. Later, they have to admit that my swish pan worked exactly as described and other edits as well and I am invited to direct the next assignment which is the drama. But this was a trial by fire. Ignorance almost won. Still, at one point Ed tried to bait me in the cafeteria by saying, "I don't think movies need directors." I forget what I said back, but the right answer is that some people would agree and it may depend on the kind of project but EVERYONE agrees that NO movie needs an incompetent crew member. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ed's brother seemed like a friendlier person. Neither of them attended a class reunion years later, but I did hear that his brother ended up living across the street from a friend who had acted in a number of my projects. Unfortunately, over the years badmouthing had ripened into outright false history and mischaracterization so there might have been some derogatory mythology created by one brother or the other and passed along. I have been told that to top that off a woman I debated movies with on Facebook had such a meltdown that she decided to then badmouth me to the actor or his wife and I haven't heard from them in two years. So a little bit of misinformation is the gift that keeps on giving. It was likely for the best that these brothers did not show up at the reunion. They have oddly accumulated a fair number of credits on imdb.com which can add that extra seasoning of irritation. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ They say the best revenge is living well, so I hope I can redress this by actually clawing my way into the light at some point. At first glance my own problems don't seem like something to complain about. I wanted to write movies and so I have spent many years doing that. I wanted to direct the features I have written and have taken whatever steps I could toward that end. It is still an ongoing process. A few of my energies may have been misdirected, since the farther away I get from a simple shoot the more uncreative work has to be done. The one thing I know now that I didn't know a few years back is that a power struggle has to be anticipated and guarded against. That is almost a sub-category of Murphy's Law. There are a hundred ways to allow your leadership to be undermined. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A college instructor I had for screenwriting and directing once asked me near graduation what I planned to do and I mentioned some screenplays I intended to write and direct and he said, "So, you want to pass yourself off as a writer-director!" That is a moment I turn over in my head, a typical mind fu*k. NO!!!! I don't want to PASS myself off as anything!!!! I plan to WRITE my screenplays and the DIRECT them !!!! Over the years the mind-fu*k has actually worked, because I pathologically resist any co-writer and insist on sketching storyboard panels of any shot and making sure I design any scene transition to fully feel authentic ownership of my directing, as opposed to people just arbitrarily covering a scene or letting someone else choose a shot. I would still rather be right about a shot than easy-going and loose. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Meanwhile, I have also done a lot of b.s. goofing around that is not intended to go onto a reel. I have to get my passion back after a few set-backs have used up some of my stamina. It's at the low ebb that the traps of the past and fights I didn't fight fully come back to haunt me.

Mask Scare

social media traps

Popular Misconceptions

Actors are most often the people interviewed in promotion of a movie and actors are usually the most entertaining personalities. Audiences may persist with the idea that movies are made up by actors. It may even get to a point where some actors - if not all - believe that hype. They may think of themselves as Will Farrell, or the cast of a Christopher Guest production, made up of the top comedy names that may not embrace a script. But the craft of a screenplay and serious regard for the written dialogue have suffered over time. There is so much money and politics involved that a screenplay that itself would make a fascinating movie might be compromised for no reason other than competing egos insisting on pissing into the soup. If I have written a screenplay, I really have no genuine interest in trading out my dialogue for someone else's variation. That is by no means a formula for success. Improvisation as an exercise might be great for getting actors some stage time in the theatre, but it is like watching a first draft be written on the fly and it is more of a sport than a final product. There is a halting and self-conscious quality to it. I would rather have someone say no, they don't like a script, than have a mutiny in the middle of a shoot or find out there are undisclosed expectations. Best to provoke the truth, and it can be VERY difficult to pry the truth out of actors who might actually like to be part of a movie - any movie - for experience. Then there is the perception of directors. People from theatre may be in the habit of throwing shade at the term director by referring to a progression of excellent shots as the "cinematography." Frankly, I would rather make a movie with no dialogue at all which demands visuals carry the attention than an all-diaogue film that becomes rote pictures of people talking. In the latter case, the only reason to proceed would be if I like the dialogue and to protect it from arbitrary or political deviations. I can see people with a clear measure of success and status who I can't quite envy because I discover that their writer or director credits should have an asterisk beside them. There is a terrible trend toward looking at the term writer or director in film and saying, "yeah, yeah, nudge, nudge, wink, wink." I once had a Humber College instructor ask what I plan to do after graduation and I mentioned directing my scripts He said, "So you want to pass yourself off as a writer-director." And to this day I am agitated by the cynicism of that comment. I'm not interested in co-writers or co-directors or de facto co-directors or de factor co-writers.

Wedding of Jessica and Justin

Thoughts and Arguments

Thoughts and Arguments Human behavior is nuanced, rules pushed on social media are not. Bill Murray can wrestle a woman in an early-eighties comedy and we know she is not in danger of being raped and the attention is not actually unwanted. If we watch these scenes through reactionary and self-congratulatory eyes of nostril-mining twitter activists, all hijinks are a joyless exercise. Indiana Jones of the Nineteen Eighties killed a lot of people and was the American exploring the world in a way that provokes the term xenophobia but is in fact merely adventure. Indiana Jones of 2008 was relatively safe, still conflating unnamed indigenous figures with magical creatures, but much of the movie takes place in the United States, Indy kills only one person, and instead of being a middle-aged man who can take a punch and look like it hurts he is a senior who can take a much worse beating and shake it off. The era where vegetarian people of India eat chilled monkey brains and the same Thuggee cult we saw in Gunga Din were still operating was frankly a lot more entertaining than the apologetic and tentative offerings of today. Point of view is vital to any story engagement, and the Western Caucasian or North American view is as good a starting point as any - especially since the white guy can be a flawed character and even an idiot without that being taken as a comment on a culture. https://plus.google.com/share?url=https://goo.gl/images/xUGcJD I recall the first article on pop culture that really alarmed me about how film could be hurt. A columnist was overanalyzing a moment from Beverly Hills Cop where Axil Foley passes someone who is wearing a Michael Jackson replica Thriller jacket and laughs to himself. The moment is the sort of thing we are better off taking for granted and going along with, but the columnist feeling like an outsider could not get past the idea that a lead fish-out-of-water is presented as superior to the culture he visits. No mention of Eddie Murphy's two concert films in which he wore leather suits approximately as tacky as the Thriller outfit. Detective Foley is not a millionaire comic and movie star, but is a more grounded everyman who has the right to laugh at whatever he finds frivolous.

Lady of the Flies

Ink FB page "discussion" about a gender-flipped "Lord of the Flies" remake. Resulting Twitter storm claims, "but that won't work because girls and women are not like that." One headline calls this a "Mean Girls" remake nobody wanted. Only one commenter pointed out Mean Girls was based on a 2002 non-fiction self-help book Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman about patterns of aggression in girls. The movie was directed by the brother of Daniel Waters, who wrote Heathers (great satirical movie; no comment on the TV remake I have not seen). But the first thing that came to mind was whether Stephen and Tabitha King were lying when Carrie was written. "Plug it up, plug it up." Then I see the new movie of "It" and how Beverly gets garbage literally dumped over her by girls who s**t-shame her. The dominant conceit the discussion thread is: "Because women and People of Colour (POC) are statistically disadvantaged the punching up / punching down rule is to be enforced and it is only okay to characterize white male heterosexual CIS overlords as aggressive and capable of any evil or ignorant character." This is why I belong to no socio-political tribe. There is so much jibber-jabber about gender not being binary but fluid -- until there are Optimum Points to cash in for the permanent critic-proof self-defined Victim caste. If justifies any vindictive acting-out as the result of systemic abuse. At every turn, you want to make sure you are not aiding and abetting a Heather Chandler. (And yes, someone did post one of those memes under my one post showing a cat at a typewriter - because I am a silly man-splainer with the mind of a kitty, easily dismissed.)

New Reports Paint 'Damning Chronology' Of Donald Trump Firing James Come...

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a blunt message for Nazis (better sound)

Weighed, Measured, and Found Crazy

The bad guy Count Adhemar in A Knight's Tale says to the hero William, "You have been weighed. You have been measured. You have been found wanting." Naturally, in the end, William's friends turn these words against Adhemar. The scene resonates with me due to my own insecurity and my long held ambition to make a mark as a writer and movie director. There are a couple of faces that spring to mind as being the sort of disgusting self-styled snob who would go so far as to try to mentally sabotage those of us who have specific goals to achieve. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` Someone running a screenwriting group ostensibly for writers to read and comment on each other's works in progress might be motivated primarily by the need to be the focus and the decider, perhaps pushing what might be called the dogma of Syd Field and Robert McKee format even in a culture where many different storytelling styles might be aching to get exposure and might not survive adaptation into the presumptive blockbuster streamlining. I can say that I have more memory of abuse from those communities than useful feedback. If anything, time can be wasted following the alternate rabbit holes of random opinions given without focused consideration. The preference is for feedback to come from people whose own work you admire and who will look at a draft as indicating what it is you care about and from that how well you are serving that concern. I made the mistake of being candid about my night job, due to the need to travel there after each monthly meeting instead of joining the rest or the writers for a beer. I had a security guard job. If someone chooses to look down on that, they ignore the fact that it did allow me to read screenplays and give considered notes on them. In the realm of sharing notes with strangers, online outlets like Zoetrope.com and Triggerstreet.com were somewhat useful and at least you could tell something about the reviewer by the willingness to rite more than 200 words and the specific relevance to the manuscript at hand. Nothing against the study of Syd Field's Screenwriter's Notebook for example or Story by Robert McKee and various other books about writing but these should be part of a Recommended Reading list and not sources for generic go-to comments to pass off as thoughtful coverage. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` If someone is a toxic person, even though they might appear to believe in the most humane left-wing ideology their fascist heart can be exposed by the tactic of attacking the individual speaker and assigning a pathology to them instead of engaging the arguments with logic and without the expectation that your "facebook friend" is the enemy. Even if it is disguised as a teachable moment, that can tend to be so crass that it is a slap in the face. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` The tricky trap is that there are some who believe or push the principle wherein the mental instability or trauma of a small percentage of those reading or following must set the tone and limitations of what can be said and how it can be said for fear of "triggering" them. While we all might have compassion for someone's trauma, this has escalated to the level of the victim as ruler. If one makes any complaint, he or she will be accused of "playing victim," yet complaints often do have to be conveyed one way or another. If someone has legitimate claim to vulnerability or victimhood, however, it is not a workable situation to stifle and censor all thought that fails to placate that person. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` I don't find it necessary to name names. If someone wants to be an idiot and say that I have spoken out about his/her actions, that is out of my hands. But the principles are more important than the personalities. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` Someone asked for volunteers for a project in her back yard. I responded with an e-mail and mentioned I have a camera I can bring. This was agreed. I was to document. I happened to bring two cameras, the second one being capable of shooting tape for an hour unbroken. So while walking around documenting the volunteer work, I allowed this person to frame up each or three camera positions - each one running an hour - that might be used as part of a demonstration. So I spent some time over there. As essential as the three hour-long shots might have been, there had been no effort to secure this for the project outside of my randomly showing up. As well thought out as the presentation might have been, this person then was not able to firewire onto a capture card of the computers on hand. Documentation of the volunteers on my other camera was easily imported. But I left my camera overnight so more attempts could be made to capture video. When that failed, I returned to pick up my larger camera and I spent another four hours trying to capture and also burn discs. Two discs went fine, but the third shot had some glitches and I wanted to know if I should persist. I e-mailed that there were two discs that turned out but not in full 1080 HD, only DVD quality. I also sent via Facebook a similar message and uploaded sped-up files of all three shots to indicate what was done, noting that at high speed I could be seen waddling around fast and that might be a distraction. I got NO RESPONSE as to the next step from this genius. Do I drop off the two good discs or try to get something out of the third? I had discovered that my camera playback/record heads needed cleaning if I was to record anything again. I looked into taking it in to Canon in Mississauga to get the lens cleaned and heads cleaned. (Turned out that exercise was horrible because Canon workers there won't make money from cleaning lenses or heads, only for a deposit over $300.) Time passed as no phone calls, e-mails, nor Facebook messages were answered. I did my distracting and anxiety-filled back and forth with Canon and their techs trying to scam me. And before I knew it, I was hearing indirectly that the presentation that had been planned never happened. I had gotten through by phone only to be told my timing was strange. I did not press to find out what this meant, and only then did I learn the thing was a bust. I had no indication as to whether I was expected to do more than I had. I had not spend five hours at a semi-friend's place and four more at mine working on that as a prank. There is only one communication style that is worth anything when you have deadlines and specific things that need to be done: Direct, clear communication with a specific intention. There is nothing between the lines in a non-response. There is only disrespect and perhaps madness. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` Ove the course of a year, my only communication to this person was two supportive notes (along with other people) on Facebook threads. One was about being small after being big for a while, and I said, "You are big." The other was about the Netflix series Sense 8 the Wackowskis did. I commented like someone else that even if their content might seem to message-driven and can be a bit much they know how to direct. Finally, a crazy falling out happened (if there was anything to fall out) because I commented on a linked blog that was factually weak. It was complaining about "the male gaze" driving movies and in its three cited examples it included Fifty Shades of Grey and neglected to mention that its director Sam Taylor-Johnson was a woman and that the novelist who had control over the project was also female. It also jumped through hoops with diagrams trying to prove that the geometry of the framing in Mad Max: Fury Road forced the movie to be more respectful to women.... neglecting to mention that Imperiator Furiosa and the whole movie was the product of writer-director George Miller and his 70 year-old male gaze. If you like the heroine of that flick, thank her maker. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` It did not help that a guy I had unfriended a year previous for abuse chimed in for some virtue signaling to throw shade on the ignorant sexist (me). The only lesson I learned from that back and forth and the following morning was as follows: If your Facebook account is beeping whenever someone posts, don't procrastinate about disabling that function. Don't let others and their random input drive your day. Also, make your point and then leave any conversation. There is a tactic some use in which they widen the scope of a discussion beyond the specific item for which you have an opinion. The wider the umbrella, the more disrespectful it is to clarity and the finer points. By the end of it, you can end up with your name all over the page and people seeing remarks out of context. This is baiting. The imbecile who chimed in also lured me to address side-issues and then the next day deleted his own remarks and left mine hanging without context. My own direct message to the owner of the page asking what was really going on was not answered. So I could see the value of my remarks: nothing. I deleted each of my posts. When the owner of the page realized this, there was a manic attempt to paraphrase the discussion with multiple highlights of my name - again to restore the vulnerability of my name being all over the page and this time with less context. I could have sent a printscreen or frame grab to Facebook with a complaint of harassment. That might have been the wise course of action. Instead, the person unfriended me. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` There was some back and forth in Personal Messages trying to get to the bottom of it all, and finding only spin and a completely false recollection of something from 15 years prior. Of the project, the only mention was one of being grateful for my help, although it is doubtful how that could be anything more than ironic. I was told this person likes me but that on Facebook I was a terrible person and a troll. I began to correct the errant memory that had been referred to from the year 2000, and got back a rambling and hyper mess of words telling me not to communicate again. My only response was to go a step further than unfriend and actually block this individual, which I should have done to my shade-thrower the year before. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` I have posted commentary tracks to a few of my short films on youtube, and I started with one for the short that was mentioned from 2000. The sound quality and picture were both murky once I posted it, so I took another stab at it. But because the first version included an allusion to this individual walking from the location, I got indirect feedback on it. The first time around, I had a prop - a VHS tape - and I mentioned something scandalous the self-righteous protester shot which had aired on TV. I had nothing to show from it, but I flipped up the tape guard and pointed at the half-inch tape and said, "There's the nude shot" or something to that effect. The second time, I could not find the tape prop so I let it go. I got an automated e-mail in an account that only a few people knew, advising that am instagram account had supposedly been started by me and that my name was something other than my own. There was a picture of a little boy on the fake account and some message like "I have a podcast." ```````````````````````````````````````````````` When some people get indirect they can be very creepy. I also received a mess of Facebook friend-requests from accounts that seemed fake, like a little girl I did not recognize whose parents I did not know and that was filled with professional-looking photos. Many fake accounts were like dating ads. I had to actually block some so that they would not automatically follow me. I was told that both my troll and this person I had recently blocked were conspiring together to send me these annoyances and also going after the page for my planned film. So their attacks did have quite a great deal of bashing me by name. I know that it caused one friend to stop replying to me (on matters unrelated) and his wife to unfriend and block me. I can only imagine the range of evil slander that has been spread - and over what? If I could anticipate that sort of enemy being killed, I am not sure that I would make an effort to stop that. I look forward to the obituaries of even that mundane level of adversary. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` My generation was raised on Norman Lear, Princess Leia, Mary Tyler-Moore, the Bionic Woman and Murphy Brown. Yet, we are likely to be called sexist for not being excited about the 2016 Paul Feig version of Ghostbusters. There are people who will "other" you and shun you for disagreeing with a sub-issue despite genuinely holding many of the same values. No matter how it is spun, it really may just come down to assholes in sheep's clothing. And mad, mad, mad vindictive jerks cloaked in the flag of decency.

Latest edit of The Fashion

The Fashion from William La Rochelle on Vimeo.

What the Health on Netflix

Wow. Now I have to avoid eating meat for sure. Even white meat. Apparently diabetes comes from that more than from sugar or carbs. My mom recommended watching this Netflix doc. Pretty persuasive. Check it out. Youtube's version won't let it embed, but here is the link to copy-paste https://youtu.be/y_Y5-u5u1DQ

fireworks

Commentary Track for Big Babies

Han Solo, Kevin Smith, Collider, and Cinema versus Fads

The target audience for movies may be those 15 to 35, and supposedly mostly males. But even though there have been advances in cinema, there is no calmative reserve of cinematic knowledge built up and shared with each generation of filmmakers. One might expect that the wealth of movie-making experimentation has added up to something for which there is a consensus, but somehow it is controversial for one to say that the director most fluent in screen grammar is Mr. Steven Spielberg. There is what might be considered a "punk" sensibility that could include the Dogme '95 fad, as well as The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity, where actually having a vision as to camera placement and sequence of shots becomes irrelevant. Some will call this "cutting edge" and others will call it hackery, an effective way to disguise having no observable talent in directing the attention of the audience. *************************************************************************************** One battlefield for this argument may be the firing of Lord and Miller as directors of the young Han Solo movie at the behest of co-writer Lawrence Kasdan and producer Kathleen Kennedy of Lucasfilm. Various youtubers and other outlets on the internet have played up the issue of youth versus the old guard in a fit of age-ism. Josh Trank was the first head scratcher of a choice to direct a Star Wars stand-alone film, because his one breakthrough film was a mostly hand-held quazi-documentary style film Chronicle with a strong script by Max Landis; it seemed odd that this would stand as evidence that he fit the Star Wars groove. Then his reported uncommunicative behavior on Fantastic Four led to his dismissal from the Lucasfilm gig. Some fans breathed a sign of relief, even though the directing of Fantastic Four - taken on its own merit, apart from fan expectations of the content - is reassuring and steady for the most part and not ramshackle. His breakthrough had been a viral short called A stabbing at Leia's 22nd Birthday, so that must have put him on Lucasfilm's radar. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^********************************* The youth versus old guard spin is false. Watch the 22 Jump Street making of extras and you see the loose approach of Miller and Lord. This agitated me when they got the gig. Kasdan is the draw and the reassurance. If he conceded to those directors, his name would be a false label. If he removed his name and that of his son, it would hurt Kennedy and Lucasfilm unjustly. Recruiting a Josh Trank or Miller/Lord is marketing. Having Kasdan is creative DNA. If you have handed in a great script (one worth shooting), and the apparent writing is the one effort through which you will be judged, you want directors who DIRECT THE AUDIENCE with appropriate shot choices that bring it to life. To that end, the visual stylists should be at the top of the list, not those who are mainly known for shooting generic coverage recording improv. THAT should be the issue. I like the actors in a Christopher Guest movie or Anchorman and I laugh at those, and even the Jump Street movies are amusing, but that isn't cinema. Some people feel if a movie is Star Wars or super heroes or action adventure or horror it is trash -- but on the contrary that is where the BEST directors are NEEDED. They aren't needed for hand-held weepy social issue movies which will get awards for choice of subject matter anyway. If you are worried about not enough women or two many whites, put Iranian director Ana Lily Armirpour on a Star Wars. She has the right attitude. She prefers Zemeckis over Jarmush, and that bodes well. If a director or actor can't have faith in a screenplay, their priorities may be out of whack. There DOES have to be a side to take in this. Kennedy and Kasdan want to make a Star Wars movie, not a 22 Jump Street in Star Wars drag. ###################################################################################### There is no such thing as fun for the whole family. Especially the larger the family. When that family fills an entire hall, or has a large internet reach, there tends to be compromise. There is no such thing as truth for the whole family, at least the honest conveyance of it, using the same principles. Larger the family, the more watered down or obligatory-positive it may have to be. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// As a fan of pre-podcast Kevin Smith, I hate to use him as an example even if it makes a point but ultimately there may even be people on Collider panels and other loud, gesticulating youtubers I do like and listen to despite my pet peeves. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Are people clicking on the latest blog or v-log or discussion to glean some sort of information, or merely to feed the algorithms affirmative data? Insert loud, high-energy greeting here, followed by personal updates on anyone involved as if it is necessary to know their personal habits and not merely to pad the running time and create a false rapport with the viewer. ****************************************************************** There have been a few times when I felt waves of utter falseness from the youtube facade of Kevin Smith. 1/ He fully embraced the GhostBros canard and the Sony-inflated stats on how many detractors rejected the 2016 Ghostbusters remake merely out of sexism. 2/ When some advanced screenings for Wonder Women were promoted as being just for female fans, Kevin jumped on the band wagon of scolding male fans who supposedly complained of being excluded. 3/ When Chris Lord and Phil Miller were fired by Lucasfilm from the Han Solo movie, Kevin and his co-host Mark totally missed the point and spent most of the segment praising those directors. Maybe being an insider and not wanting to lose a job or alienate those directly involved counts against being blunt. An internet presence is not just an end to itself but a platform of cross promotion. So maybe it would not be savvy to say that Paul Feig was naive in thinking the continuity of Ghostbusters would not matter and that hitting re-set would be just fine, and maybe there was half a second where some kids on twitter had their complaints artificially elevated and inflated by a marketing bot before the fast majority of us fanboys found out way to the opening weekend of Wonder Woman and got in just fine. And maybe there are people who value the choice of post-modern directors who are more about letting actors interject alternate variations on a script. ************************************************************************************************************** Maybe Lawrence Kasdan and writers in general should just accept the arbitrary vision of directors who bring to the table merely a willingness to goof on the material and riff on it rather than take it as read and get down to visualizing it and knowing how to use the frame to direct our attention withing the content that has been provided. Maybe Kevin has more of a kinship for a Feig or the Lord and Miller approach, which appears to be awfully loose as shown in behind the scenes DVD extras for 22 Jump Street. Mark had a funny line where he said, "Maybe there is a world where Lawence Kasdan is the draw getting people pumped for the Han movie." D'ya think?!!! The Kasdan hand in it is the only draw for me. When I heard Lord and Miller had been chosen as directors, of course I thought they must have to appease the ageist internet as if the "new" way to "direct" a movie is what we all need. If it is Jump Street in Star Wars drag, it will be a disaster. And we all knew that from the... jump. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is one thing for a director to recognize a flawed script and help guide it, but quite another for the director to have nothing much to offer other than input on the script. Because once THE definitive screenplay is done and approved by all, the team is going to need an actual director to do the directing. Someone might be a presence that puts an improv motor-mouth actor at ease, but it should be called what it is. There are some fun-loving sets full of writers posing as actors instead of bringing to life a fine-tuned script. Riffing and joke-o-rama sessions don't engage the heart and give it flight, let alone embellish a galaxy far, far away. ************************************************************************************************************** A Lord and Miller or a Paul Feig will keep getting work as long as people like them and maintain friendship with them. But it won't be prompted by their stellar instincts of how to present a scene. My GOD! Is Star Wars an entry-level job? Or Ghostbusters? What if Paul Verhoven directed a Han Solo movie? It would be properly storyborded by his own hand and every shot would count. Why isn't there more discussion and appreciation for the actual DIRECTING? ************************************************************************************************************** When people say a director is a "genius," look at who is saying it. An actor who gets to improvise or make up the script completely or just wander wherever he/she wants and lets the camera catch up may consider the director a genius. "He says nothing," they typically say of "actor's directors." A cinematographer who is essentially a de facto co-director conceiving many of the shots will consider the director a genius for having not intruded actual direction. The writer who sees the complete script verbatim brought to live with no ideas from the director will sing the praises of the director. The director who is actually the producer and makes all the calls and raises the money and gets distribution deals is the kind of director a producer might be delighted to honor by adding their own name as producer to be along for the ride. That's the one area where the director with little or no talent might have to do something: to do the producer's job. But in most all other areas, the less creativity the director contributes, the more his or her reputation as a co-operative genius well liked by others will be secured. ************************************************************************************************************** This of course doesn't help those of us who are writer-directors who like to storyboard everything and know the movie we are setting out to make. We might get stuck having to take on the other jobs because we are "difficult." ************************************************************************************************************** Great to learn trickles of information that the star of Han Solo Alden Ehrenreich was the first to complain about the directors going off the rails with their "vision" which included "Ace Ventura" wacky directing, which indeed sounds like a career-killer. This takes Kennedy and Kasdan off of the hotseat as top-down bosses. It also supports the view many of us have (okay, a small minority of us) that Miller/Lord is a far cry from the Cohen Brothers or even Farrelly brothers in terms of expressing an artistic voice to cherish, nurture and protect. It is odd to see that the imdb page already has Rob Howard listed ALONE as the director of the Han film, regardless of who shot first. *************!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Child Brides | June 14, 2017 Part 2 | Full Frontal on TBS

It seems like such an avoidable problem. A kid shouldn't be able to get married, and (though I hate abortion) a little girl should not be able to go full term. The law should claim on grounds of size there is too much risk to the life of the pregnant girl. The fetus should routinely be tested against the DNA of the male and he should go away to prison on that evidence.

Everyone Ban Marineland

Looking Back at Big Babies

Recently decided to capture and upload the full version of Big Babies that was cobbled together in 2004, and I found it holds up better than I had expected and better than I had heard. The opening prologue discussion has an energy to it, although I did get a tweet from The Projection Booth asking, "does anything every happen in this?" which is a trade-off of front-loading some character development. The main body of the short may not allow the characters to be as accessible. I will eventually continue my plan to record a commentary track which I'm sure will set the world on fire. Funny how remarkably few views a new video an get. I have heard of algorithm working against a video, but I may have to explore that - a subject of zero interest, except that it would be nice to disprove the theory that someone has hacked my account and is reducing exposure to it. As for the subject matter of Big Babies, I don't carry it around so much. What I like is the glibness and whimsy of it, whether or not I would approach the same taboo type of topic again.

Big Babies from William La Rochelle on Vimeo.

Top Tier on Tour - Joe's Mancade Review [HD]

It is interesting to see the passion for nostalgia over video games and the

fandom trappings.  If I had more disposable income, I might - might - have

more stuff to curate. But this is kind of blog-worthy.  Kind of too bad it

is hand-held and a little shaky.  Joe seems to know what he's talking about.

Bruce McDonald Pt.2

Bruce McDonald Pt. 1

Bowmanville Camp 30

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Commentary

Movies, Anger and Victim-hood Cycle

It has been widely understood that someone abused as a child for example may grow up to become an offender or may even be so damaged and shut down that he/she grows up to become a serial killer. Sir Anthony Hopkins has said that he learned in his research for Hannibal Lector that serial killers usually have childhood sexual abuse in their background. So someone who introduces himself/herself as a victim, even if it is ostensibly for education, social betterment, and scaring the hell out of anyone who belongs to the potential "abusive" segment of the population. It has gotten to a point where the cracks are showing and playing up the victim role is not only tacky but it is more revealing than ever in the blog-o-sphere where the air is thin. Try speaking truth to power on Facebook and you lose interest. If you burst someone's bubble it's considered vandalism. You might actually care about any wrongdoing done to the person, but by the time you have seen the dark side under the veneer, it is just not worth your attention. The status quo begins to look better and better. First World problems can roll along. Anger and victim-hood are valid reasons to regard an individual or group as a possible threat, either to a quality of life or to an art form or your own freedom from legal persecution. The con artist or embezzler who is confronted with irregularities and false claims following an audit of records may evade communication and resist owning up to deceptions and skimming of funds. This person may even go to authorities claiming there have been too many calls or e-mails regarding the matter. If a lawsuit is pursued and won, the individual may revert to the same process of evasion to avoid paying the judgement. This con artist may even portray those he or she has wronged as guilty of harassment. It would be reasonable to expect that those who have been wronged will want redress. Where it gets complicated is with groups and racial heritage issues. Historically, African Americans have been kept down by a system that knows that slavery will never be redressed. Anger can be visited upon Caucasian peoples alive today who have not participated in slavery but grew up watching Roots and Norman Lear sit-coms. It can also be visited upon Portuguese descendants of those who in 1526 first put the slaves onto ships, or those African chiefs who at the time waged war upon each other and captured and sold their own people as described in 1998 by then President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni, who called the descendants of those chiefs traitors. If someone is saddened that there are not enough rom-coms with heavyset heroines, they are more than free to take an HD camera and go make as many as they like with willing actors. But the anger has more to do with the idea of money being invested in something and profit being reasonably expected and status being earned by someone who is hired. There seems to be an intense and somewhat naive campaign for affirmative action movies and TV, and something called “The Diversity Problem” comes up on the internet lot as established successful creative people are confronted by people who wish to use a forum or spotlight for their own issue. In the Twitter age, there is rampant expectation of immediate gratification. If you want Hollywood – that non-existent place – to do your bidding or increase the stock market value of your experience and your look, or if you are angry that a celebrity said a word you find offensive and you want that career ended forever, there is a childish impatience and an empty demand. The anger behind it is real, so it should be taken seriously and the best defense against it is a strong offense. What fuels the Diversity issue? Look at the under-reported aspects. China owns a considerable portion of Sony. In 2008, there was news that Spielberg’s Dreamworks received considerable investment from Bollywood. American Movie fans were braced at the time for an influx of obligatory nods to India on the Domestic movie screen. Action movies especially are able to achieve a profit thanks to the Foreign box office, now more than ever. The specialness with which movie stars were regarded as far back as the Nineteen Eighties or Nineties has dropped off, and the role of the Director has been in question depending somewhat on the name. Sam Raimi has said in a Spider-Man 2 commentary that if someone from his team of storyboard artists thinks up their own shot, he will usually let that person direct it like a second unit. He says, “People are looking for someone to give them a chance. You have to prove that you don’t need a chance, and then people want to work with you.” Even so, the key scenes from his films bear the Raimi imprint and there is no doubt where an efficient sequence of shots comes from. Jon Favreau has occasionally hired the likes of Genndy Tartakovsky (Samuri Jack, Holtel Transylvania, Tele-Toon Clone Wars) to design a sequence because he doesn’t “come from action films.” He has lamented that sometimes Marvel would give him storyboards and said, “Just shoot this.” In cases where a director is merely running the set and making sure to remember Tiara Tuesday or being an “inspiration” to people, frankly that isn’t the director that inspires film students and those who want to feel their credit is authentic. But the mad rush for folks other than the infamous white straight male to be hired as director has come with accusations that the word “merit” is just a term invented to keep the status quo. It is difficult to argue this if TV series are actually run by producers and writers and any guest director will most likely be paired with one of the regular Cinematographers who keep the schedule and look somewhat consistent. Presumably the one thing an incoming director might bring is a visual style or an interesting way to motivate the use of the frame, but even that might be kept in check. When Steven Spielberg started in television, he was frequently over schedule and in conflict over shooting in a way that was not rote or generic. Being distinctive is a risk. When Vincenzo Natalie had a credit on Hannibal, it was worthy of taking notice. But even then, the decision to assign him the more artsy and abstract episodes robs the viewer of seeing simply his command of the frame when it might not be so obvious to all. When Cube was made, it had to be fought for since it was not the kind of film the Canadian Film Center was doing with its Feature Film project. Yet, it has been the most financially successful and it helped kick off the career of an important Canadian director who actually does direct the attention of the audience – the most important element a director directs. The Film Center can point to founder Norman Jewison as the reason for social issues playing a big role in content they want to support, but it should be remembered that Jewison’s own films were first-of-all good and well-directed. Some writers and filmmakers hide behind virtue signalling and social or political content while merely covering the material and relegating the camera to a recording device that documents inoffensive mediocrity. With that as the standard, it is no wonder that some people have ants in their pants and pathologically talk about “developing the script” instead of getting past that. The tired old saw is, “Once the script is right and the casting is appropriate, Ninety percent of the director’s job is done.” While script and cast are vital, that supposed ten percent should be 100% of the conversation about directing. I find directors intent on re-writing the script for the writer tend to be people with no vision about the actual directing. A cinematographer may be happy to serve as de facto co-director designing the shots, and actors may be happy to call a director who stays out of their way and doesn’t say much an “actor’s director” and an editor might be delighted to “find the film” in post and hope this “director” keeps getting hired and making everyone feel creative and fulfilled. But it also has a ring of fraud. If the director of mostly low budget comedy Safety Not Guaranteed made a leap frog to Jurassic World and then a coveted job helming Star Wars IX, and another went from relatively modest Monsters to Godzilla and then his own Star Wars project, and the lady who made character-based tragedy Monster goes through a few TV movies and series gigs to take over Wonder Woman, it catches our attention and imagination. If also is bound to leave countless established cinema stylists wondering how they have been passed over. It also suggests that someone who needs this kind of break to make a name for themselves will also not rock the boat with executives. If Patty Jenkins has a huge hit with Wonder Woman, people will say it was heavily storyboarded by others. If it is anything less than a blockbuster, the survival of the Extended DC universe can be blamed on her and by extension her gender. Hopefully it will do strong business and she can prove herself with on other projects in the future. John Landis told Kevin Pollok’s Chatshow that he actually did ask an executive once why he was not getting the bog tentpole movies anymore. He was told, “We’re afraid you’ll just go and make the movie.” Historically when the studio “suits” are focused on other projects during a busy time, that is when a good movie was able to slip through the cracks and get made either because it was overseas or too long a drive from the studio, or just under the radar. Executives trying to justify their jobs with useless input may be the biggest expense in the bloated carcass of cinema. Now as for feedback from people who don’t care about the craft of cinema nor its future, this brings us back to social issues, activism, and anger. Suppose you have the State of Israel with people in Gaza starving outside the wall. The knee-jerk reaction is to tear down the wall and let all who are needy inside and spread the wealth. The reality is that Hamas – an elected body – could take responsibility for the care, feeding and shelter of any Palestinian suffering in Gaza. They could afford it. But they WANT to sacrifice the health and wellbeing of their own people so that emotional manipulation can happen to pressure Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, does not speak for all Arabs nor all Muslims. They can’t enter into an agreement that would be honored by all on the Palastine side of the debate. Reuven Rivlin President of Israel, or Benjamin Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel could arguably make agreements on behalf of Jews but one-way agreements would not be in their best interest. If their responsibility is to look after those who live inside the borders of Israel, they may understand the anger of those outside the gates but they would be naive to drop their guard. World Cinema is not stopped from existing because Hollywood movies exist. But there is a naive willingness to erode mainstream film with input from the fringe. There is a book of essays called “The Case Against Schindler’s List” and it boils down the belief that the point of view that gives a screenplay its structure and emotional investment is doing a disservice to history. Supposedly, although anyone watching the film knows about the gas chambers made from converted showers, to spend screen time only on the exception to the rule – the time water came out – erases what actually happened by the millions elsewhere. This is a theory that can easily be rejected. The movie shines a spotlight on the Holocaust and it also led Spielberg to create The Shoah Foundation which documented testimonies from survivors which is still available today. At its core, what this book of essays has in common with Twitter activists now is that it disregards what is good for the film, for its narrative focus and thus its power to move people. A more documentary approach with plain coverage of events and all available statistics would not only be long it would commit the greatest sin: It would leave the audience not caring except in the abstract. It is easy to say, “Yes, it is terrible so many people died,” but can also mean people won’t sit through the information session in lieu of a movie. If to be the “Director” merely means to be the boss and to be a “star” means merely to get a paid job in a current pool of talent, that can all backfire. There are many people in offices who have “director” in their job title. If the person directing a movie or TV show is no different in character or approach to the job, and hasn’t got a talent for deciding how the frame itself can aid in telling the story, that person is diluting film language. Spielberg is the director who is most fluent in that language, which has evolved through Hitchcock and is always in danger of being devolved thanks to movies being watched on smaller devices and the overpowering reliance on “pictures of people talking” or talking heads of dialogue scenes over-explaining the content. If it is an imposition for a director to specify a shot or placement of an object, or if storyboards are regarded as a crutch, then the crew has the wrong mindset. If everything is art, then art is a meaningless distinction. If there is a ruling from the top down that each culture on the planet earth must be represented in a movie, Chinese viewers will be alert for the “flower vase” character who is just there to represent Asians. The role most actors would want – the criminal or bad guy or John Bender in an updated Breakfast Club with a chip on his shoulder – had better not be played by someone who actually is expected to hold angry attitudes or a lobby group will piggy back on the publicity and make it about them. If you like Bollywood movies, those are readily available. There is no shortage. If a movie is going to get release in China, there are strict controls. It is surprising that a Star Wars movie could play there despite the supernatural element. There was American fan outcry when it was revealed that the Chinese poster for The Force Awakens used a smaller size for John Boyega as Flinn in proportion to the white actors. But each culture will have its prejudices and even if a market has a regressive stance on something cinema will still want them as an audience. There are strict conditions about co-productions with China and what they want for their investments. It would be naive to think that you are seeing more of one culture or another in Hollywood productions merely because the USA is a melting pot or because Canada is a cultural mosaic. The great Meryl Streep herself stated at an event for women that, “Young heterosexual males are not interested in seeing a movie about a woman.” We can only accept her authority in this matter. I can say that as a long-suffering straight man in his forties I still have yet to see The Devil Wears Prada, even when it is at the Public Library for free. Women doing “guy things” may be a genre in and of itself, which can draw an audience but not to the degree that the industry might want to invest in. Yes, Star Wars has Rey, and Princess Leia before that, but the stakes in their lives are compelling. Yes, Thelma and Louise is a great movie, but it is also a car chase / get-away buddy picture. The screenwriter Callie Kourie went on to make movies that had less of the grit and more what we expect: women talking about relationships. Devine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood seems to be the title that comes to mind when imagining what women might want to see take over the cinema from the mean white male coasting on privilege. Sex and the City made money, and then its sequel was considered a bomb. Where was the solidarity among women wanting to see themselves represented? It would cost less to make a feature-length version of The View. There could be a story focusing on the time Star Jones lost weight and was promptly fired for not putting the overweight viewers at ease with her fat. (This last example comes from someone who himself struggles with weight and knows intimately why it is about much more than looks – gout, sore backs, type 2 diabetes, and loss of energy are among the burdens that cause empty talk of “positive body image” and “acceptance” to ring hollow.) If you want more Native movie directors, encourage the Native Robert Rodriguez. When I hear propaganda looking for new voices, I expect a Native director to generate bitter pills about glue sniffing and suicide and tainted water and the trail of tears or residential schools and the demon white man. So it goes into the, “glad it’s being made, good for society” bottom drawer and not on my must see list. What I’ve learned from Robert Rodriguez all these years is nothing about the plight of Mexico or Latinos, but that the Mariachi is cool, the Cortez Spy Kids are cool and their uncle Machete is cool and that Cheech Marin remains cool. There is a kinetic energy and whimsical flair to the style of Rodriguez, above and beyond the idea that he makes movies at a reasonable cost. He could make a big budget movie and vest it with a mastery lacking in some of the committee-made fare. He would have the right shot for the right moment. The filmmaker who gets into directing because he/she loves movies can come from any walk of life but hopefully will not be content to make arbitrary choices and accept what is there instead of manifesting magic and charm. The fact that you hired someone does not make their work your “direction.” You either had a vision or you did not. What may happen is that fans of non-directing (Robert Altman’s way of describing what he did), where the camera adds nothing to our proximity and identification with characters, a relaxed muscle that frustrated the viewer, will still get work and make social connections and show up at events and be part of the “community” generating limitless content when there is already far too much to wade through. That is bad news for cinema. Hiring a director with affirmative-action as the primary reason can result in even more mediocre sludge to market. Suppose your mission is to stop the darn Male Gaze dominating photography and cinema. It is said that the Male Gaze reduces people to Tits and Ass, while the Female Gaze notices your shoes. That would line up with males having a physiological imperative and women having a political imperative. If you thrive on discussion of attraction, for example, that is taking something organic or analogue (attraction or lack thereof) which is not a choice and therefore not to be judged and not political and synthesizing or digitizing it into a conversation which is a series of choices and therefore vulnerable to judgement or politicization. Therefore it follows that issues such as leagues and busybody terms like “trophy wife” come into play as a way to artificially steer and control what had been innate or to devalue and throw shade upon something that works well for someone else’ life. It comes back to devaluing the stock of someone’s experience or artificially inflating one’s own. In cinema, there are many gay and lesbian viewers who can watch a romance between a man and a woman without being repelled. So pandering to 10 percent of the audience at the expense of the other 90% trying to generate more gay themed films for the sake of those who follow statistics reads like an empty mission. The Dallas Buyers Club was described as important by Oscar host Ellen DeGeneres the year it was nominated. But you can’t please everybody. Bret Easton Ellis on his podcast has talked about how the Trans character was invented for the script and the main character in reality had been bisexual but that producers figured a straight man getting AIDS was more compelling and marketable. Maybe the truth would have been off message and less important. There are directors who get work because they are willing to be de facto producers. Maybe they get a cinematographer who has talent because that person is simpatico with the idea of building up the director but also discretely coming up with great shots he/she can call “directing.” Maybe the editor is on board because there will be so much opportunity to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. And maybe the producer is happy only as long as the under-funded make-work project is on time and under-budget. And meanwhile, those of us drawing storyboards followed by floor plans and making sure we have our clever shots planned may be regarded as the a-holes who think we are Kubrick and as the Farrelly Brothers warn, a crew will make that kind of director’s life a living hell. But such is life. That is the stacked deck of cards being dealt. Some of us would rather keep crews very small and not worry about the industry as a whole. Others want to see larger crews, concern themselves about the industry, and maybe not care so much what is happening to the craft of direction.

Diversity Problem

If good movies and good movies are governed by anything it is focus. The drum being constantly beat by certain characters in the Toronto writing community has to do with diversity in general, as in anything other than white straight male and the much talked-about privilege it supposedly has provided. The subtext of that observation - sometimes overtly spoken - is step aside white guy and let the others lead. Well, first of all, the loudest voice I see on this is a woman who produces TV and is a celebrated screenwriter. Being lectured about power by the powerful has a bit of a false ring to it. Might even call it bullying. The "kind" voice adopted at least in text form has a tone of condescension. A topic is brought up regardless of whether or not there can be an honest answer. There is a "diversity problem," said someone to Aaron Sorkin. Well, considering that from Demi Moore's lawyer character in A Few Good Men to the very political, diverse and issue conscious TV series The Newsroom, Sorkin himself is not the guy that you blast for a diversity problem. So much is said condemning the three act narrative and Joseph Campbell these days, and TV is being heralded as breaking new ground in storytelling. But with few exceptions (Breaking Bad, to an extent) the storytelling trade-off is that with the unpredictability there is also perpetuity for the sake of perpetuity, leading to an ending that will feel arbitrary. I'm not sure it breaks down to gender or to writer's rooms full of contributors, but I can watch an episode of The Walking Dead or Orphan Black and wonder why I need to see this scene or whether it is leading anywhere. If I begin wondering why I'm there, it's not a good sign of engagement. Are we being hit over the head with a false world selling us what is cool? At least on Orange is the New Black the characters can say loathsome things and we give them a pass because they are criminals or corrupt officials or mentally disturbed after all. When Alex fears an incoming inmate might be an assassin, she describes a darker suspect by saying, "Her Disney princess is definitely Jasmine." I would hate to see the kind of suffocating climate in which that kind of writing is banned. I can see us getting to a point where it is almost like a choice to prefer pre-2011 TV and film, retreating to the time before Twitter. The weaponization of blogs and discussion boards to insist that every potato chip must be All Dressed and that every Pizza slice must have Every topping would make no sense. Nor does the idea that we shouldn't know whether a character is male or female or how we are to engage our empathy with an apparent crisis being played out. Just as there are action movie templates that are full of clichés like the retirement age cop who gets paired with a crazy partner who takes risks, there are drama clichés that could be retired as well. Among them would be the closeted gay character, the aggressively out character who either is killed by homophobes or by disease, the suicide that was tried or the one that succeeds, the abortion that was denied or the one that is revealed, or the abusive husband/criminal who justifies his acting out of rage because of how the white folks treated him. These are no longer, after hundreds of the finest dramatic depictions, likely to draw much more than a rolled eye. Been there, done that. And just as movie studios buy properties from around the world and remake them with white actors (what is called whitewashing now), remaking American or white cast films with diverse casts won't make them better. Breakfast Club might work with an all Chinese cast, so the archetypes are not seen as allocated according to social judgments about race nor as reactions against that. But I doubt those in charge would see it that way.

Mel Gibson INTERVIEW 1999

Solutions to Mediocrity

This could be seen as a response to responses to responses to Cameron Bailey's remarks calling for change or progress in the Canadian film industry or movies in general. Whenever I see the name Cameron Bailey, I don't first think of his impressive association with TIFF. Instead, personally, what leaps to mind is a hostile article he wrote about John Carpenter's Halloween attempting to roll back the clock to before the Village Voice gave it a good review and caused critics to re-think and give it proper praise. I may have sent him a letter at the time. I don't recall. Putting aside personalities and arriving somewhere near my point, whatever someone thinks of the premise or genre of Halloween it is objectively a well-directed film. In someone else's hands (which has happened many times over), the same premise would not be as engaging. In discussion of Cameron Bailey's article and subsequent arguments, there is the question of what is mediocrity? How does an industry (or more truthfully, individual filmmakers) get people stirred up about a new director, a writer, or a film/TV show? How do you coax them to be interested in a market that is overwhelmed with content? How do you get more diversity in front of and behind the camera, and is that what reduces mediocrity? Liz Braun recently published a blurb in the Toronto Sun (which I saw through one of the free subway papers) claiming the Oscars don't matter. This may or may not be true, but the explanation started with "Hollywood is a bastion of white male privilege." That's the level of thought. If anything, the Oscars are too willing to award people for "best choice of subject matter." Bret Easton Ellis argues on his podcast against the trend of ideology over aesthetic. As for content, where is the mischief? Most of my favourite films would likely wind up on someone else's guilty pleasures list. The best answer to the challenge of improving the quality of Canadian films and cinema in general is to reject the challenge entirely. Or Canadian "identity." That's another factor to reject. I may be nostalgic for SCTV, and even The Beachcombers but I don't expect every other person I pass in the streets of Toronto to have the same touchstones. In a cultural mosaic, or even generation gaps, one person's food can be another person's poison. There has to be a love of movies greater than a political impulse. Folks of my generation reveal their age with references to pop culture from the days when there were only a few channels and VHS was dawning. I saw damn near every movie in the theaters as a tween. And still found time to catch up on what was available on home video of one format or another. The movies I loved were not just a delivery device for social agendas and virtue signaling. Right now, the self-conscious filmmaker might ask whether he/she is making an "important" film. Ellen called The Dallas Buyers Club important. If had strong performances, but ultimately it adapts the true story of a bisexual man who catches AIDS into the story of a straight and homophobic man who catches AIDS, which arguably gives it more of a marketing hook. It's "important" that the lead be a white straight male, maybe. A pocket of supportive movie fans might make a point of following the "First Weekend Club" to support new small films right away. But is that on the principle of "support Canadian films" or in a market where there is so much competing for eyeballs and ears can we only truly get behind a director we like, a writer with a certain style, or a premise that looks intriguing? The Rez was a short-lived CBC show that could have been given more commitment, based on W.P. Kinsella's work and the Bruce McDonald film of Dance Me Outside. There have been campaigns come and go where people were encouraged to send books and creative supplies to isolated indigenous communities. There have been people given cameras and encouraged to express their authentic voice. Well, if that just means documenting despair and glue sniffing and suicide, overall it will be less effective in lifting people. Give a Native filmmaker the tools if he/she wants to make a monster movie or a silly comedy, maybe something that has nothing to do with truth. To flip the words of Truffaut, film is 24-lies-per-second. I would rather see a bullshit story that is lovingly directed. If a dumb premise - like the escaped mental patient being chased by his doctor before he can kill everybody - made with style and wit and clever use of the frame and the displacement of the edit can engage me then we are talking about loving cinema. I haven't learned much about the plight of Mexicans and Latinos from Robert Rodriguez movies, but what I have learned is that The Mariachi is cool, Machete Cortez is cool, the Cortez Spy Kids are cool, and Robert Rodriguez is cool. Rogue One is not nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, nor I expect will any Star Wars movie (the 1977 film being the only exception). But it is the only film this past year that I saw twice in the theater. Previous year, that was The Force Awakens. I also attended a "roadshow" screening of Tarantino's The Hateful Eight. But you know something these films have in common? I was going to see them ASAP whether or not I saw a single trailer, and I carefully avoided any reviews. Because these films arguably didn't really need hype. If anything, the hype is off-putting and misleading. There are degrees of want-to-see. I was one of three people in the movie theater when I saw The Beaver by Jodie Foster on it's opening weekend. Months later, I bought the DVD. Doesn't mean that I want to see many movies about coping with depression with a puppet. When Sodderberg made Behind the Candelabra I saw it on-line right away, but I'll admit I would not have rushed to the theater for it. I will see any movie directed by Sarah Polley or David Cronenberg, but I admit I now generally see them on DVD. The 1980's are a maligned era of cinema, but most of the movies I own a copy of come from that decade. Nothing against Taxi Driver and the heyday of the Seventies, but would cinema really be better (or alive at all) if it was all about alienated loners feeding their psychopathy? If Hollywood has a formula that comes from Aristotle but is blamed on Rocky, Jaws and Star Wars, to me it is nothing more than charting engagement with a story. There is an accurate conceit as to where the audience is at any given moment. The more didactic or social-issue cinema (well-intended though it may be) might even regard style with suspicion. But in genres where style is vital, there is nothing to hide behind. There are some filmmakers who do exist in a rotation of boards that can keep each other in contention for grants. There are people obsessed with statistics as to how many women are directing or how many cultures are represented. That for me is a discussion separate from whether a movie is any good and whether a director has talent or is coasting on a social issue or a Director of Photography who may be the de facto co-director. I don't conflate those issues. I've seen each Ruba Nadda film, sometimes in a theater, and I go back to the days when I got her short 16mm films on VHS. She knows what she is doing and I've seen her work evolve. Jane Campion I respect because she storyboards, whether or not that is the popular view in the "no rules" cop-out era that yawns at the thought of film grammar. Are you making a movie or just recording the content of a scene with rote coverage. I don't much care for the John Cassavettes or Robert Altman loosy-goosey approach, but in the digital age those are the kinds of movies that can be made by anyone with a DSLR or a smart phone. Nobody will be harmed if you are merely recording actors and expressing yourself. No reason to suppress that impulse, talented or not. But as much money as The Blair Witch Project made nobody was chomping at the bit for what its directors would next shoot...because it wasn't much of a directing reel. I'd rather see people be more deliberate and not slavish to realism. When the Trumpster fire has been extinguished, hopefully not ALL energy has been expended stewing over the jaw-dropping flagrant corruption and evil presented unvarnished from the White House. I don't know if people in Flint Michigan can or should think about anything other than avenging the water situation there. But unless people are willing to use what's left of their lives plotting vigilante activism against so-called public servants, there is also going to have to be healing (not sedation), and appreciation for slight-of-hand, craft, and manipulations that can come from cinema. The movies have to come before over-arching and over-reaching mission statements about the film industry. And whether that observation comes from the trenches or the sidelines, it is feedback from the viewing public. If I like your writing, I seek it out. If I like your directing, I seek it out. If I like your politics, I click like on your Facebook post.

Kermode Uncut: Killer Concept

Film Appreciation: Directing rant

Film Appreciation: Directing

Adapt or Divest From Dying Technology

When the music industry introduced CD's, they were delighted to have something that took up less shelf space and was easier to ship than a record and could not be accidentally degaussed like a cassette. Instead of passing the value on to the consumer, they played up the premium technology angle and gleefully jacked up the price of the new format. When the technology to rip mp3s evolved, the music labels could easily have afforded to buy out Napster. They didn't. They could have taken the lead instead of making it adversarial. When digital technology began to take over photography, Kodak - especially the printing arm - insisted on staying with photographic emulsion. They could have incorporated a digital aspect to their business model. Instead, they faced some struggle. Energy companies that seem to be dominated by fossil fuel concerns could easily begin to shift their focus to solar and wind. Nuclear could also do this, so they are not completely out of the loop when there is finally more of a hard cut than a dissolve to new technology. My fear is that they are and will continue to, as a way to undermine those technologies. Projects such as oil pipelines with guaranteed leaks and fracking that causes earthquakes will be seen by wealthy investors as "fleas that come with the dog," the dog being profit. They won't care about Natives and anyone directly impacted by contaminations until they force people to resort to vandalism - destruction of pipelines with incendiary devices, for example. It is remarkable how civilized and how tolerant protesters have been while they are gradually killed off by the ivory tower class. Obviously labor and police get caught in the middle somewhat. But something has to be done to put a proverbial gun to the head of the gun-loving conservative investor. Divestment en masse needs to happen. Perhaps if it is made clear that pipelines and fracking operations will be destroyed as a matter of principle, divestment will me the logical option for financial self-preservation.

New Rule: Stop Apologizing | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

Break-In

Here is a short about a guy down on his luck who mugs the wrong person and squats in his apartment for the winter.

Break-in from William La Rochelle on Vimeo.

We Shall Over Comb ?

Ask Questions First, Shoot Later

Ten Things Producers and Directors Must Know, an article read from an old LIFT Magazine, before it became Film Print - a newsletter about filmmaking and the independent film community of Toronto. This is mainly a director's perspective concerning how to vet each other and draw out any concerns as each participant might want a project to continue and might want to respect each other but would prefer to draw out any conflicts or cross purposes that might emerge when it is too late to change course.  I actually got an interesting hang-up call the day this issue arrived in the mail (likely from a fellow member of the organization whose clash had inspired much of the piece).  Just found this while sorting through old boxes and decided to read it.