Writer-director

Over Easter, I had beer with a few high school friends. It's the kind of thing where you expect to account for the last 20 or 30 years of your life. Even though the broad strokes are already known. Graduated from Film and TV Production at Humber, did a lot of volunteering and being unemployed, and kept writing and making my little movies even while taking on a job as a security guard, which I thought would be temporary. ************** Some helpful and supportive thoughts and ideas were offered. I won't mention one business plan which might easily be used by others. But along with that came the opinion that a person has to decide whether he/she is a writer or a director. I keep remembering what one of my instructors said to me as graduation approached and he asked what I planned to do. He asked, "So you're going to pass yourself off as a writer-director." Since this was someone who might still be able to mess with my grades, I must have said something polite instead of, "Better than passing myself off as writing and directing instructor." He must have failed upward because he became head of the department. I could have also said, "Yes, I'll pass myself off by writing a screenplay and then directing it; that will surely fool people into thinking I am a writer-director." :):):):):);):):):):) What I have been seeing typically for years is that many directors develop their own projects. If they have found an already written screenplay, it is considered a draft and they will want to "work with" the writer or just walk away. It is like the old joke of producers or executives lining up to take their turn pissing on a script. It's not like I have people lining up with excellent scripts for me to direct. But I have participated in readings over the years and given detailed notes on many scripts. It is enough to know that you either click with something or you don't. I may not have time to see every story idea through to completion. I have too much in my inbox anyway. I have directed another writer's work and the process was the process. Once a script is ready, it can basically be locked. Especially after group readings and storyboards have drawn out possible areas of improvement or necessary tweaks. All of my own scripts go through that process. And once I have drawn it out and had to meditate on each beat of the story or of a scene, I can relax as long as everybody else is open to actually looking at my plan rather than just trusting the whims of the day. ________________________________________________________________________________________Being the writer and the director does not mean that I do "everything." I have had a few people offer me scripts to "produce" which they would want to direct, but that is like hiring me to do many of the chores I only reluctantly do for myself or for which I have waited years to delegate. I would be the wrong person to finance a film, given that it is mostly guard income I survive on. But I have had to do just that many times. Even if you get a producer, you have to have that awkward talk about whether you both understand the duties and responsibilities of that post. If suddenly the director has to recover funding that had not been properly locked down while a project is near or in progress, that could be a disaster. If you start revising a script because it has to be done with no resources, you are wearing the producer had and Murphy's Law is not co-writing and co-directing. There are a lot of opportunities or windows to shoot something I have let go by because now I am not as naive and certain of my destined path. But for me it is a matter of keeping an eye on the expected final result. A compromise on one end of the time-line will have its result on the other end. Each crew member is important. Each is a link in the chain. ________________________________________________________________________One logistical snafu and nothing can nor should be shot without the necessary element. I have in the past accommodated people leaving early from a big shoot and I've had to shoot around them to disguise the fact that they were not present. At that point, the best shots for those moments may be lost. Except that I was in the habit of doing storyboards and it helped the re-organization considerably. What may be lost is subtle. A room full of people has a certain energy. At this point I've caught on to how certain shots can't be easily achieved in reality. Even a 360 degree pan of people might not give the smooth other-worldly mood necessary and build viewer confidence in the project. So those elements become part of preparation. Too much emphasis these days is on simply "covering" the content of a scene, and assumes that it is two people talking. I am going to blog about this in more detail. But on the subject of writers handing over their scripts to a director, each project is its own. If I have written a stage play, I am oddly open to someone or several someones directing and re-staging it however they like. Perhaps because of the expectation that plays will be remounted or go on the road indefinitely. A movie is rarely remade. Even if it seems like the Seventies and eighties are being raided constantly for remakes. Also, part of my interest in directing a script is its potential for necessary invention and use of cinema language. So many movies are just master shot, over shoulder of everyone, close-up of everyone, and the scene from top to bottom. Flipping a burger. In those cases it seems like the director's role is merely symbolic or a matter of reviewing whether the actors are sticking to the plan from rehearsal or casting discussions. Jon Favreau has said that often studios would give him storyboards and say "just shoot this." Or he has hired the animator from Samurai Jack and the first style of Clone Wars cartoon to "direct" on paper the movements and framing of a battle in Iron Man 2. To be honest, the proper application of cutting and shooting is the key to my love of movies. MANY articles and interviews I've studied pay lip service to storytelling and visual elements but then run a camera merely recording conversation - as Hitchcock said, "pictures of people talking." Ironically, I am poised to do something that simple perhaps just because I have no production team and nothing to pay them so I will be writing like the wind and confining everything to the simplest location for the sake of. . .well not just savings of money but the Aristotelian unities of time, place and conflict. Then at least I won't be doing my "first feature" when I tackle the larger project I have been developing. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________I would LOVE to have a decent income. I would LOVE to have more of my titles from the past 10 years on imdb. I envy an enemy of mine who was savvy enough to start a film festival and once it was recognized by imdb simply put her own film titles up there - even at least one I know to be some sort of inside joke (a so-called doc that isn't anything more than an interview of her boyfriend). Much of my play and my passion has gone into preparing projects that at least were my own and/ or had an interesting element. I would be doing more for other people, but in my nerves I feel I am out of place in that capacity. If you advise anyone else on directing you are pissing up a rope. Everyone thinks he or she can direct, so this may not be unique. I won't co-write the work of others, so the idea of working on someone else' script to direct is not on the immediate horizon for me. Maybe after I've gotten my stuff out of my system. Most projects I should have done in my twenties or thirties. I know how sane I felt immediately after completing a film shoot in late 2003 and my brain felt more free to write. I got a lot of good work typed up, and some that still needs to be fixed up. I would certainly give certain scripts to another director and let them stage them and even cast them while I am directing one of my other scripts. As long as I'm not expected to pay for the pride of being a writer-john. I haven't given in to the vanity press. For now all I can do is be thankful for the people who have taken an interest in what I am doing and have helped. _______________________________________________________________________________You know, as I recall, the Canadian Film Center had its Feature Film Projects that as a rule only budgeted for an individual to be paid for one of the positions he or she held. This meant that it made great economic sense for the writer to also be the director. I know that if I were merely surrendering a script I would consider my job done. It would be all over but the compromise. So better to have me doing something, actually directing. As a producer I would be a liability because there are producer-minded people who could be going to bat for the project. You need a load bearing member of the team to be the producer. Obviously the cinematographer and first A.D. are essential. People expect a producer to be production manager as well. There are many positions that I have occupied, but the only one where I feel I am actually the best for the job (for the money) is writer-director. Even then, when directing it is to an extend acting if the scope is large. I wouldn't want some pip squeak wandering along and sizing me up and trying to spread dissent in the ranks. George Roy Hill was much like a general. Apparently so was Milius (who is recently featured in a great doc by Chop Shop). But I tend to be more quiet and hope to plan enough in advance that we don't miss anything. It is a cause for concern that I have not climbed up the imaginary ladder of the DGC for be a PA/AD, then a 3rd AD, then a 2ND AD, with payments and minimum numbers of hours on set in between. Unless I get in straight as a director, I might have to forget about union shoots. I can't be playing that game at age 45. I pretty much have to stick to what I am doing. ___________________________________________________Every now and then you will see a directing credit like Vincenzo Natali on Hannibal that you recognize and you can settle in and watch more carefully, but for most shows it just seems arbitrary who comes in to direct. The shows have good image quality, so the shooters know what they are doing, but I think it will only be taken as a grouchy position to evaluate the quality of TV directing or movies at least in an open forum. I need to be doing this more often, though I have no love of logistical tensions and politics. I feel like I am getting back into it and starting over each time. I keep seeing posts (by female directors) saying there are not enough female directors. I can understand someone boosting the stock of something they've got. But the one thing definitely needed is more excellent directors and a better image for directors. There is clearly an impatient view of directors by and large and a perception that they are all doing something by rote that is so standardized that they are redundant. Whether it is me or someone else, we need to see the DIRECTING evaluated as directing and not so much for content and politics. Some films are more fun to watch than others. The writing is often a meandering mess, which might make it closer to life but also makes the proverbial natives restless. Anyone can do it, so why am I merely wasting my time blogging on a Saturday when my time and my ind are my own? I am either hyper-ambitious, or hyper-apathetic.

imdb credit updates

Ten years. There is a ten year gap between today and my most recent posted project title on imdb.com. Granted, I haven't even tried to add a title since 2005. There are some little complications such as which links may be accepted proof that a movie exists, which of the approved film festivals it may have screened at, or who is distributing it or presenting it. Unless a title is part of an established writer or director or actor's body of work, it can be included even if it has fallen under the radar. But the criteria is apparently a little more stiff when it comes to the rest of us. There is a certain fairness to that. Another way around it is if a number of previously unseen works are collected in a volume and marketed. But someone else' profile was brought to my attention recently - a former collaborator I do not get long with whose listed imdb credits were as sparse as my own until very recently. Apparently it is easier to get new titles added - even clearly bogus titles - if you a) run your own film festival for a few years, and/or b) master the internet to a point where you can fudge a few facts. When I should be thinking about the projects ahead and moving forward, I can't help feeling I should have made more effort to list a few titles from 2005, Porno the Clown from 2007, and maybe some of the quickies I've done in the last few years. This is the sort of silly pressure nipping at my heels. One would think that with the movie industry changing there will be more internet-related outlets that will have to be acknowledged as distribution of a short or other film or TV project. This of course is something I have not looked into in just under a decade, even though I pretty much feel that if I bring in a producer on another movie it will have to be someone who can sort that out and make sure the title is on imdb. There are a few projects I have done on film and others that certainly have more substance than a few titles noted above that I have seen listed. Can you imagine someone pointing a camera at her boyfriend, letting him rant, and calling it a documentary? Maybe it's not as scandalous as I make it out to be. I guess I just can't stand con artists. Unless they are conning for me. To be fair, how man times have I failed to submit a movie to Mediawave or other festivals? Today is this year's deadline for Mediawave and I don't know if I'll submit. I have not embraced the business of show. Yet I am facing the specter of new expense of HD transfers for very old movies of mine that were shot on film and which can't measure up in their current digital form when compared to HDV home video camcorder material. Maybe having money would be another way people can cheat their way into circumventing the red tape and getting credits listed. I suppose a person could also engage someone to create a wiki profile and add those titles and a bio, since users may not be allowed to submit their own profile information. But isn't that exhausting? And if you can finally google yourself to see how "famous" you are, would it count? It is going a long way to believing your own hype. Unless people are just using it as a sort of modern business card. The irony is that legitimacy is just so potentially false.

imdb debates -further trashing of Star Wars prequels

Okay, here are a few things I've said in response to a young Star Wars prequel fan who refuses to look at them with a critical eye. I know it's beating a dead cat, but the upcoming aboninations of 3D-converted re-release make it part of the soft boycott I'm sort of doing.

OCCASSIONALLY wooden acting? Compare the work of any cast member to their non SW prequel work. Even Jake Lloyd is more bearable in Jingle All the Way. And I'm sure it's no accident that there isn't any mention of Haley Joel Osment screen testing for Anakin on the DVD documentary.

Minor plot holes with OT - Padme's death in III despite Leia's memory of interacting somewhat with her, as described in VI ? That's minor?

- Here, have something to drink without even sniffing it for poison despite the disturbance you feel in the Force.

- Why would anyone want balance to the Force when there are supposedly two Sith in the Universe and a community of Jedi? That's the right kind of ratio.

- The wisdom of the Jedi is apparently to be humorless, reckless and fearless despite paying lip service to the opposite. A character must REACT with fear to new surroundings so the audience can feel suspense, even if they summon the strength to overcome it.

- In OT, decisions were usually made under fire and in a crunch, on the fly. In the prequels, there is usually no urgency and things are decided or discussed in periods of rest. (Except of course scenes like "rational" Obi Wan jumping through a window instead of pulling the floating robot to himself with the Force, despite saying he "hates when" Anakin jumps from a flying vehicle).

- One point in the Sith review that makes GREAT sense is that it would be common practice for the Jedi to "watch the watcher" or keep an eye on Palpatine or anyone else in power. Knowing that absolurte power corrupts absolutely. They need only look into the heart of anyone they encounter, including Palpatine, and if they are blocked then they know that person is communing with the Dark Side in order to do so.

- I don't care about the rationalizations. "I didn't really come here to free slaves, " is an INFURIATING line coming from "Schindler" but it is also not befitting any Jedi or any protagonist in a heroic adventure. Freeing slaves and disregarding an outlying system's WRONGHEADED tolerance of it would have been a rousing and engaging central premise. And LEAVING Shmi Skywalker to live as a slave and not even check in on her for, what, 10 years?

Fear of Anakin's mother suffering is a REASONABLE fear, and NO relation whatsoever to Fear that we overcome, like prejudice -- which I what I thought Yoda was talking about when I saw the trailer, and what other fans nodded appreciatively over.

The business of "attachment" being forbidden is paradoxial, since a Jedi may be attached to irrelevant rules at the expense of what is worth a hero giving his life to defend.

- Anakin talks about a device he has invented for scanning where slaves have their incendiary devices planted in their skin. THAT should lead to a quite worthy sequence! Is Qui-Gon removing Anakin's explosive when he takes the blood sample? I don't recall WHAT he was doing. Then why not Shmi's explosive next? Why not make a point of covertly ridding all of Anakin's friends of their bombs? Maybe Shmi is off at work when this happens and she has to be among the last, and maybe she crosses a perimeter and Watto sees this and activates his remote.

THAT would have been an ideal circumstance for her to die, right in front of Anakin, and maybe in reflex he mentally swats Watto against a wall like a fly. Might not be apt for a children's film, but certainly okay if Lucas cared to establish a tone that naturally ended with the PG-13 finale of Anakin's legs being chopped off before he burns beside a lava lake.

- The chief accomplishment of Attack of the Clones is they manage to have a battle between armies of robots and Jedi and make it boring. They have also made peace boring, which is quite offensive in a set of stories about war and mostly released during war time.

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Years from now melchiahdimension-1 you'll watch these prequels and wonder WTF you were thinking.

On close examination of the most basic points, it all falls apart.
George Lucas is all about negotiations and deals and those transactions are a big part of the "story" in the prequels. It doesn't make them more civilized. It makes them false and out of touch with the human spirit.

The fact that Lucas will re-release The Phantom Menace in 3D February 2012 and not stick to the OT just willfull greed and shortsightedness. The prequels are a disgrace.

deleted imdb reviews

Most of the time these are referred to as "comments" but when they are deleted the alert refers to them as "reviews." So I'll stick with that wording.

I'm not entirely sure why one or the other was deleted, except by another user.
I'll modify them when I get the chance and re-post, but for now I'll just paste them here as they were. The second one, for a terrible spoof movie, is a justifyable deletion. I think I pasted some wording from a critic's blurb. I don't fully recall. I thought I had changed the context of it. I recognize the first wording (for good or ill) as my own though at first skim.

Iron Man 2 (2010)
Skip the reviews; watch the movie, 7 May 2010
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.

False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.

False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.

I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.

Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.

I'm really only posting a comment at this point as a way to vent. I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.

Meet the Spartans (2008)
the first "place holder" movie, 28 January 2008
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

Some writers write what they call place holders when they know a movie could use something here or there or an explanation or a name for a character. . .This is the first time I've noticed someone let a whole movie go through the process and keep the place-holders.

It's a generic piece of crap with nothing to say, least of all anything to say about the pop culture it references. I love spoofs. I love satire too. Naked Gun, Airplane, Mel Brooks, even the last couple of Scary Movie installments. This isn't even an attempt. It reminds me of an old TV charity event "Night of a Hundred Stars" which ended up cramming people in by having them step out and bow, one at a time if you are lucky. Except that this is not as inspired, hasn't got the stars, and hasn't got the charity.

The closest thing to a decent quote I can find is :
"Meet The Spartans makes Epic Movie look like Scary Movie."

Good quote # 2:
"The movie follows the essential narrative of 300, with some obvious detours.
It plays as if someone handed over a laundry list of popular-culture flotsam, and the recipient took it to be a script."

That's about all the good that has come from this movie being made.

A series of walk-ons for one look-alike after another.

It is made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Any film that indicates these names as directors can be guaranteed to suck. What they do right is they say yes to distributors and get something shot which can be marketed close to a better film it is trying to ape. They keep the budgets around 20 million dollars and they make a profit in the first weekend before the teen audience realize that on every website the films are rated maybe two or three out of ten, and with single-digit percentages on the tomatometer. They are a brand name of suckage. Sadly a decent Canadian musical about vampires called Suck received no theatrical release and yet these garbage merchants crank out a place-holder called Vampires Suck and it gets between 2000 and 3000 screens. Why do Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get hired? They really have nothing to say about anything they are ostensibly spoofing. There are Second City improv troops who can whip up a 90 minute spoof on any topic or movie in much less time than it takes these dweebs. The studio heads need to get out more. The Kentucky Fried Theater was running for a while before Zucker Abrahams and Zucker ventured into film spoofs. Mel Brooks cut his teeth with the best of the best in live television. These putzes don't know how to generate comedy. I can watch hours of student films for all the energy and urgency and experimentation but I can't sit through the films of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for free on the internet or on a DVD that is handed to me or when I am forced to hang tight with others who are watching their crap. I have forced myself a couple of times and it is rough going.

--

Okay, by the time I was done reading over my post I realized it was not worth reposting something that had been an inexplicable word-count of mostly a published review someone else wrote. I decided to trash that and rip on the two dudes who have ruined spoof movies for half a decade.

Seriously thinking about deleting this blog or just posting elsewhere for obvious reasons. But at least it's a place to paste some useless observations while procrastinating about my own crap.