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.

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. *************!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

10 Thoughts on Directing Movies

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Be the first to say it is "just a movie" or "First World Problems" to get that nonsense out of the way. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/movie-director-6.jpg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. With money tight, is it worth paying hundreds of dollars for a directing workshop without exploring the information and tutorials available for free on-line and on DVDs ? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ https://www.instagram.com/lilyinapad/?hl=en _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Is it true that "Once the script is right and the casting appropriate, ninety percent of the director's job is done" is has the job just begun? Some films and many TV shows use directors only as guests and already have the script in place and the cast already attached or established. The director may have to initial each page of a script to ensure it is all shot. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://67.media.tumblr.com/b78ca5314f53b8754bff183a55a92311/tumblr_mh95s3iewL1rovfcgo1_1280.jpg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Is Wernor Herzog right in saying that "storyboards are for cowards" or is Roger Corman right that especially directors starting out with respect for everyone's time should prepare storyboards and/or pre-vis? Does it matter that a storyboard "implies a cut" or is it up to the director to decide the psychological use of the frame, a move, and the displacement impact of an edit? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.tribute.ca/images/videos/ruba-nadda-inescapable-6016-300x226.jpg 5. Do you aspire to the Auteur Theory or is Peter Farrelly right that, "If you come off like you think you are Stanley Kubrick, the crew will make your life hell" so it is better to tell them to save you and you know nothing? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/film-director-quentin-tarantino-is-photographed-for-shortlist-on-7-picture-id173215132 6. What part of a director's duties could be delegated before the directing credit feels fraudulent? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Martin_Scorsese_by_David_Shankbone.jpg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. How do you honestly develop a reputation for a style or even competence without establishing a vision in advance? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://static1.purepeople.com/articles/3/13/44/43/@/1348944-la-realisatrice-jane-campion-62eme-950x0-2.jpg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Is important to have a social issue as your masthead or is the language of directing itself enough to draw fans? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.trbimg.com/img-56567b8c/turbine/la-ca-mn-conversation-spike-lee-chi-raq-interview-20151129 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Is it better to work independently or join a union, paying for workshops between clocking set hours as PA/AD, third AD, second AD, and First AD, giving yourself years to climb a theoretical ladder to Director? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Sofia-sofia-coppola-562139_395_480.jpg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Will you have time to schmoose and drink with the right person to get a job, or will you be focused on developing your craft? And must you be a musician or actor or stand-up comic as a prerequisite for directing or is that the advice you will get from a director who is a musician, actor or stand-up and wants to psyche you out? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Francis-Ford-Coppola.jpg

Film Directing as Political Football

If movie directing is becoming a political football, it must be what we call soccer. The goal here will be to diffuse outright falsehoods being promoted. 1. The CBC has already committed to hiring women for at least fifty percent of its positions for directing TV shows. 2. If a script is submitted for funding to the Canadian Film Center or any other entity in Canada, there is an opportunity to indicate gender and visible minority. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/entertainment/lack-of-canadian-female-directors-a-political-issue-researcher-says-1.3071157 3. In TV especially, the writers/producers have more say about the content of an episode than the guest director of an episode. So it is false to assume that power resides in the director to turn a scripted lesbian triumph over the patriarchy into a hard-edged macho cop show that condones racism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDHqDEa1ed4 4. There is a "get the job done" work ethic in Assistant Directors, and a "never miss tiara Tuesdays" crew-service perspective that is of great human value on a set but does not have any relationship toward that person directing the audience through the frame once elevated to the job of "Director." Some comedy directors I enjoy keep it simple, keeping the cast in focus while they improvise, but there isn't much room for directing as an art form, by which I don't mean "fancy shots" (a term I hate) but the most appropriate shot for each beat or transition. https://youtu.be/3FOzD4Sfgag?list=PL2w4TvBbdQ3sMABf317ExCob_v6rW2-4s 5. Even though it may be true that having a "beer with the right person" or being "the kind of person people want to have a beer with after a long shoot," may result in getting hired as a Director on a project, it is questionable whether or not that is good news for the craft. Who has time for a beer after each shoot day, and even if that means the wrap party, it is movie lore that Steven Spielberg skips the last shot and wrap party on everything since Jaws - initially out of fear the crew would prank him or get revenge for a long shoot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q4X2vDRfRk 6. The argument that a writer or director must have empathy certainly is valid, but it is more important that the material is presented in a way that engages empathy and it is nearly impossible to tell just how much "empathy" any ambitious person in the film or TV business actually has. If that refers to male empathy for the plight of women who are not employed enough as directors, that is a First World Problem anyone can identify with who does not have that job. Many women hate Woody Allen because of his personal life and the writings of Mia Farrow, but some of the best acting roles for women have his name on them. Some of us might weep in life only when watching a movie or play or reading a book but in life respect ourselves and others enough to put up layers. As the line goes at the end of The Madness of King George, "I have remembered how to seem." So an actor or director feeling something is not the same as an audience feeling it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqFd_niDWA4 7. It has been said that, "Once the script is solid and the casting is appropriate, Ninety percent of the director's job is done." As vital as those aspects are, for the sake of evaluating a movie director, I would focus only on that remaining ten percent which makes as much difference as the microscopic difference of an extra chromosome at conception makes to the grown adult that results. Coppola talks about "performance" meaning the way a director presents on the set as only half of the actual directing and the other is preparation or vision. Being a social butterfly isn't part of it. Coppola has also said that, "A dictatorial reputation comes from the fact that an experienced crew after a while can do certain things by rote" and introducing something new can meet resistance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1D2_bovy20 8. There is little difference between having no script and having no storyboards. Unless the point of excess dialogue is to eat up time and be able to claim a huge number of pages have been covered on a given shooting day. For most of us who are slowly developing projects, there is time to do what we only need time for: sketch the shots to see the movie, how to visually introduce characters, what we need to see and what is more powerful without being focused on. The argument that storyboards "imply a cut" and may cramp the style of the editor may be something to discuss when choosing an editor. Or assistant editor who can be elevated to full credit after the fact and circumvent any politics. For low budget, storyboards respect the time crunch. A look book may additionally be provided to the art department but it is secondary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwLenvNG0E 9. Anecdote: In a system where the statistics for women in film where far worse than they are now, in the Nineteen Nineties, Ruba Nadda was publishing poetry and making shorts with her sisters using a Bollex and 16mm film and spending her wages from Ontario Hydro to send prints to festivals overseas. She made a feature on black and white 16mm, another in colour, took a producer's course at the Ontario Media Development Corporation, and cast Arsinee Khanjian in her next feature which became Sabah. Atom Egoyan became her mentor. Christine Vachon became executive producer of her next few films. When people talk about influencing cinema to be more diverse, all they have to do is look at Christine Vachon's producing credits or read her books like Shooting to Kill. That's a producer with a voice and ideology that is rare. It comes from an individual and her own networking, not imposed from the top down with false expectations. https://www.facebook.com/The-Adventures-of-Porno-the-Clown-1561237830831389/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel 10. Do some Canadian productions put ideology before aesthetic? When Vincenzo Natalie submitted Cube to the Canadian Film Center Feature Film Project, it would become its biggest success but there was resistance to it because of the attitude, "This isn't the kind of thing we do." In other words, a major statement of visual invention almost didn't make the cut because it wouldn't blur together with small character pieces that pretty much all blend together. I had the pleasure of working on a CFC feature called Clutch toward the end of their shoot in 1998, and made a point to see the film when it was released. There were quirky elements, and it is the last CFC film to date I can remember finding and watching. I have tremendous respect for Norman Jewison's directing. I have And Justice For All, Moonstruck, and Fiddler on the Roof. I respect In the Heat of the Night, and got to see Jewison speak before a screening of Hurricane at the former Bloor Theater in Toronto. But even with my own politics leaning to the left (not leaning so far I topple), buzz words like story and character can ring hollow if over-shadowed by mission statements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfZYVLRoPTo

Ghostbusters Reboot: Sony Hits Back at Fan Backlash

Very handy video putting this into perspective. Especially the "nerd-shaming" element which has damaged our view of some talented people as the spin has gone on.

What might Jaws: The Indianapolis be like?

Below is a scene from the original Jaws, a speech Robert Shaw edited down from a monologue mostly John Milius contributed. The story of the USS Indianapolis has been dramatized a couple of times, but there has been speculation over the years of whether Universal might dare make another Jaws movie with this as a core story, serving as a prequel to the original. The first concern might be poor taste - an intense movie giving us what we THINK we want, actually showing what the character Quint is talking about in the scene. They do, after all, tell screenwriters "show, don't tell," despite this monologue being an excellent example of telling that has been earned in the context of an otherwise very visual movie. As a moviegoer, I might welcome this prequel flick. (And by the way, no, I would have zero interest in seeing a %100 historical film about the subject as a substitute.) What I expect is that it will all hinge on the casting of a 19 year old actor who evokes Robert Shaw to a shocking extent, modulated for youth and minus minus much of the edge the story will create in his life. He would be the lynch pin, and our involvement would largely be about tracking his arc from a practical joking but team-player and believer patriot all the way to grizzled atheist where I expect he will see a very decent young father or someone else worthy of survival get killed right behind him as he waits for his turn to be lifted from the water. I expect the poster will have multiple versions of the Jaws logo (for which I have an aversion) ascending toward little soldiers floating above. I expect the Jaws theme would be used. I expect that these days digital technology can manipulate shots of real sharks and integrate them. I would also like them to be bold enough to include a shark that looks just like the original Bruce, with jowls where the hinges were kept, and perhaps insinuate that this is the same shark that will sink the Orca years later. That would be a Hollywood wink that a purist might not like, but that is the kind of flick I think would be appreciated by Jaws fans. One temptation I'm on the fence about is whether they should have the Captain receive information that the Russians have made progress into Japan and that it is not necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which has been recently publicized as hidden history by Oliver Stone. They didn't have to use the bomb, but the White House decided it should be a demonstration of strength because now they wanted to keep Russia in line. But even if the movie sticks to the most dramatic structure, with Quint in each scene (he could of course overhead a cable being read), it would be worth doing. The issue of truncating a long ordeal of weeks of survival in the ocean into two hours or less might be a directorial challenge, but also an opportunity. Personally, I would use the old Passion of the Christ structure and punctuate the horror with flashbacks of better times and perhaps what kind of life Quint had up to that point, maybe living in Amity. Then he can try to impart something or motivate a fellow sailor to keep awake or to not be afraid.