She Doesn't Quite Gotta Have It

Sometimes the only way to salvage anything from an otherwise wasted experience of watching a series is to talk about it (which can only get you into trouble) or compose a review (which nobody will read anyway so there's no risk). The Ten-Episode Netflix series based on Spike Lee's first theatrical feature She's Gotta Have it is an example of ideology over aesthetic. If there is an element of fun it may come from spotting references to Spike's other films, one appearance by the director as a bartender with a straight-haired wig like the one he had in Malcolm X, and a new younger actor taking on his alter ego Mars Blackman. The other two of Nola Darling's Boyfriends are buttoned down Jamie and vane preening Greer, neither of which we have much rooting interest in - not that the goal of winning Nola's heart is one that is necessarily something to vicariously thrill for. The new series is referred to as a comedy in this trailer by a YOUNG-looking Spike Lee, but I have to say I didn't laugh once. Many of the moments duplicated from the original lose the original charm and organic feel of the humor. The new series may have been released in 2017 but it is a reflection on 2016 with ongoing to celebrities that were lost that year, primarily Prince, and the rise of Trump with culminates in a fine music video segment. Easily found on youtube. That aspect of politics is a refreshing break from the more blog and hashtag variety of politics that the series centers around. The series was suggested by Spike Lee's wife and he considers it her vision. It is mostly written by women, and may even appeal to women as long as they are of the third wave feminist variety. Spike has mentioned being accused of seeing through "The male gaze" and this is supposed to be an exercise in proving otherwise despite a couple of strip club sequences that set up a sub plot about one of Nola's friends who wants a feature erotic dance spot but is denied it because her rear end is not large enough and so she endures painful injections to increase her buttocks. That falls under the category of satire that earns no laugh. If you have to explore the story, the original black and white feature can also be found on Netflix. The camera styles that marked Spike's debut feature, shot by Ernest Dickerson, is not evident in the perhaps more quickly shot series despite the fact that the feature likely had less money. The shooting is mere coverage, recording the events of the story or the conversations, in the most expedient manner. What's left is the monologues and constant onslaught of declarative statements laid bare. If Nola Darling winds up in jail, she will not call one of her boyfriends for help because she does not want him to get to feel like her rescuer. Granted, the target audience may lap it up, but the series was a slog for this old, fat white male. Respecting the style of so much of Spike Lee's work, I felt an obligation as to push on through the rant-filler and test my tolerance of Nola's self-interested blather. If this is the kind of content that the Post-Cosby, Post-Trump, Post #MeToo generation will call for, it might just mean I will spend less time and money watching movies or on-line content. No matter how expensive a nose ring may be, from a distance it looks like the wearer could use a Kleenex. Spike has been on record that one regret from his movies had been a scene of Nola in the original film getting raped by the "nice guy" type represented by Jamie. It might have taken that much to make people feel sympathy for Nola, who comes across as self absorbed and shallow in both movie and series. In place of this crime, there is a rude guy on the street who reaches out to her in flirtation and when rejected spews verbal abuse. Ironically, except for one scene of a hug repeated from several angles, there is little evidence that the show is directed by Spike Lee himself and he likely took the job so there would be one less person to hire. There is no feel of inspired storyboards or shot sequences. A woman could have easily been hired, or ten different female directors - one for each of the ten episodes - and none of them would have to be on the level of Julie Taymor or Jane Campion. The sets are decorated with artwork due to Nola's career as an artist and blatant historical faces like Malcolm X and so on mainly for the sake of direct-to-camera monologues that eat up lots of time, like, "I don't have to explain myself but here is a five minute explanation. . . ." Meanwhile, rather sitting through ten episodes of this series to see a cringe-worthy dance between characters who don't belong together and live in an alternate universe where everything is okay with Nola disrespecting her suitors in a far fetched coda, just watch the original Prince video of Raspberry Beret.

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

Various Shorts from the recent past

Some new, some as old as 15 or 20 years.

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

Oliver Stone documentary - South of the Border Oliver Stone - Hugo Chave...

Taxi Driver Audio Commentary (Director & Writer)

(Don't) Consider the Source

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

Spaghetti short

A short video about leftovers as breakfast.

V for Vagnerian, Veneration, Vegetarian. . . .

A twit on the imdb.com discussion board for Scott Peters the current producer of the reboot of Kenneth Johnson's V found an old post of mine where I was rejecting the show and calling it an anti-Obama tract. But that was in the earliest episodes of the reboot where frankly it wasn't a well written show. The plotting and transitions were very scattershot and I think the scenes had an arbitrary rushed pace to them. The show eventually found its way. But the thing about an imdb post is that people find the old ones and reply as if they were written yesterday.
I still kinda prefer the old 1980's version with its World War II analogy, but I also think whatever had been intended as a subtext for the current V for Version of V isn't much there anymore and we're better off without that. Subtext worked for Battlestar Galactica's reboot, but now that the Bush era is over there is not as much to seeth over.
Here is my reply to that imdb user:

Actually the show has improved vastly since its first few episodes. And one thing that has eased off and then disappeared is any connection to that subtext. Now that the fuss over the flu is done there isn't much in V to mirror it anymore. Any connection between blue energy et cetera and healthcare would be laughable. There is nothing sinister behind universal healthcare in Canada. Let alone big, sharp teeth and pointy tails to impail people.

I'm not the one with something to cry about. I don't live in America where the people who still have a stranglehold are the Republicans. And by the way Ms ALLCAPS Esplin obviously by "EVERY OTHER TV SHOW" you skip Fox "News" and CNN, which is surprizing considering the Republican tendancy to cower from anything other than their own camp. In most TV there isn't any such thing as absolute right or absolute left. Just because someone supports Obama doesn't mean we TiVo Glee hoping to swoon each week as two guys sing to each other. There is just enough smart-Liberal stuff is out there that we don't have to settle for Pandering-Liberal.

Somehow I get the sense you are not an avid fan of Bill Maher or even Jon Stewart. V has become a fun show, shocking and interesting, and my boycott stopped after it corrected course returning from its abrupt break in the middle of season 1. Season 2 with Jane Badler is outstanding and they've shown excellent taste in the gesture of filling the void of her departure with the inclusion of Marc Singer. I no longer read any Republican underpinning into the program.

I do however think that it is vital that people "kill" their idols or heros in the sense that they say the highest level of Buddhism encourages adherants to "kill the Buddha" and Christians can get more out of our own stated values if we "Kill" our image of Christ and the facts of stories so we can see the forest through the trees. People need to band together and not expect an indivual to be the perfect saviour and solve all problems. Interestingly enough in the case of Obama you mention -- his biggest FAULT has turned out to be his bipartisan approach. Had he been as underhanded as Republicans had been for 8 years and had he shoved all left-wing policies down the throats of Americans during his first year while he had a Democratic house (which he should have) then I can understand the Right demonizing him as a V. Instead he let himself be mired in bipartisanism so even his allies at the Left are drifting to the middle (ironically, that's where he is and yet it is hurting his team).

So I wouldn't say that I'm "crying" but I am concerned. More about the real world than what has now turned out to be a pretty cool show more in the spirit of classic V than the mess it was during the first few reboot episodes.

Bale makes public apology for the rant

I'm posting this without listening to it, since where I'm online there is no sound.
But I'm sure it straightens everything out. I figure the wrong was shared in that episode.

New waters, new era

Good news. Just having fun with the obamicon site.

http://www.obamicon.me.pastemagazine.com

The Sanitized Version

Here is a journal excerpt that was posted on a website I no longer promote, associated with a film I made in 2003/4. I haven't even re-read it since then, but I know some of the anecdotes were passed along in good faith. I didn't know quite everything that was going on at the time. It has been somewhat edited by a nemesis of mine as well. It is just pasted here from the abandoned site.

Future blogs may touch upon lessons learned after the fact.



Location Check and Pickets
When John Lindsay and I met to look at the location Shannonn had picked out, (I think this was my second visit), but we sailed right past the turn-off and then backtracked.
Before John arrived, I waited on Yonge Street for a while. As I got out of the subway, I realized that the street was lined with pickets featuring mutilated fetuses.
I thought this must be something to do with “Big Babies.” I realized I had not prepared a speech. The worst thing is that I might have been early or John had been held up elsewhere, so I had a long wait at this intersection. I had my still camera, but as I tried various positions I couldn’t get quite a satisfying angle showing how many pickets were lined up along the highway. One lady in charge saw my camera and asked if I was with media. I said yes.
I asked if there was a clinic in the area that she was protesting. She said no; it was just a randomly selected intersection. I asked about guys who insist their girlfriends give birth and than take off. She said these are not very nice guys, but at least the child is alive and an uncle may help out. She stated that it is more common for boyfriends to insist on abortion, and whether or not the relationship survives, a lot of girls go along with this “emotional coercion” instead of choice. I asked a few more typical questions and I was impressed that there was no “God’s Will” talk, which I find very clumsy debating.
A very attractive-looking woman walked by as a male protester trailed off trying to pass her on to the leader. “I’m calling the police,” she said over her shoulder. “You’ll be gone in less than an hour.”
I admit I didn’t know what the young, bearded gentleman had said to her, but it caused me to feel some empathy for the demonstrators. Except for one sign which read, “Adoption, the loving option,” depicting a living and uninjured baby, it could be argued that the pro-lifers were guilty of bad taste. But I felt and still do feel that is no reason to have police drag people away. I ended up telling the lead protester that I was just waiting for my cinematographer and I told her about the movie and it’s content. I said I was not especially taking any “side.” When I crossed the street and John arrived, his first comment as I got into the car was, “Did you see those zealots?” I laughed along and told my story but I also realized the movie could easily be side tracked if I ever actually engaged anyone in a substantial discussion of the subject matter. I’m more interested in the way people use their words and, especially these days, compartmentalize.


Day One of Shoot: Thursday 14 August, 2003
I initially joined LIFT so I could access equipment. At the last minute, we had to cancel a package from LIFT because we could not get a camera compatible with video tap. I needed a video tap, so we rented elsewhere for that reason. As we arranged ourselves on the backyard lawn of our location getting the first set-up, I notice that our video monitor had blinked out. Art department boss Mark MacKinnon reports something he heard over the radio. There is a blackout across. . . whatever area. . . and most importantly us. His explanation was more detailed than I remember. We speculate that it must be terrorists and that the phrase, “The Events of August 14. . .” will be part of all surviving media for years to come. Luckily, it was not as dramatic and we kept out own mundane problems in focus.
Anne Gravel gave a sincere look of concern, anticipating my disappointment with the project potentially stopped short. It turns out that if the shoot were transferred to the following weekend Dave Mckay would not be available. So the best we can do is chug along with whatever exteriors we can get and then keep showing up.
I have a fleeting thought that these are my vacation days and that the power problem could is ironic; this is happening the first day in a while I have taken time away from the security desk at Toronto Hydro. I expect I am missing out on a different brand of panic. Later I will find out they had it in hand.
We were already setting up for exteriors, so I only shuffled the schedule enough to accommodate the eight known exterior shots available to do and though I looked in the viewfinder a couple of times I verbally described the shots and trusted John to report any problems. As I hunch over the camera, John noticed I cast a shadow on Linda, who has to spin away to complete an edit point for a transition. I note the direction Linda spins so it can be recreated laterat a church exterior.
Without audio playback of a song to synch, we shot one pass of an overhead shot with the actors singing and another pass without mouth movement. The synch proved accurate in post, but the latter option worked as filler when I cut another shot and threw off my shot-timing in another scene.
A shot of Anne walking along the street, kicking a can, our “Moonstruck” homage, meant Monika Geresz had to run back a few times for new pop cans as they were untimely crushed by cars that got past us. Anne had to jump aside as cars approached. I was not so quick snatching a couple of pop cans. Monika ended up replacing me on the street divider-island. No cars will be shown in the final cut of the film, but the traffic was being diverted to this little street because of the blackout. In the background is a little “Welcome to Bedford Falls” sign, as Shannonn calls it. This quaint, quick touch, but it is there.
Close-ups of Bertha’s arrival and her invitation inside have to carry the scene because there is not quite enough light for a full two shot by the time we come to that. The shot of Dr. Ian peeking through the sliding glass door and his view of Bertha’s cleavage (and unusual fetus cross on her necklace) will carry the scene. Linda suggests the off camera noise of the door opening further. It ends up even more amusing despite the fact that it was a practical suggestion by Shannonn to use this rear door instead of pushing our luck with the location owners and trying to shoot at the solid, normal front door.
This way, the house is completely identified by this one side. It is also lucky that at the end of a take Linda ends up covering the fetus-cross with her shawl, which takes the curse off of the following shot where her cross will have been flipped between takes and got past me. In story-logic, the shawl may have caused the cross to flip. The secedes bugs made noise but subsided long enough to get the dialogue out. Then we were done at the house for the day. Maybe just enough time left for one more shot.
I had scheduled a church exterior for the fifth day of shooting. Apart from any pick-ups or photos, it might have been the only business on that fifth day. But taking advantage of whatever daylight we had left Shannonn piled a few of us into her truck and John followed in his car. Shannonn remembered passing a church. Though it wasn’t Catholic, it had a cross on top and a stone front. Someone suggested setting up across the street, but once I was on the sidewalk, I felt the main walkway was enough distance for Linda to spin up to the camera.
Adding a tilt-down from the cross meant we didn’t have to worry about an actor walking across the street. The camera move would still have to fit the song later, so it was a risk. Later in the video transfer the blown-out sky would have its blue restored. We advised Linda to hide her “life” picket sign from people sitting on the bench nearby until we are ready to roll. There was no video assist to consult for the direction Linda should spin playback, so I luckily trusted my own memory and not Linda’s. The action that feels unnatural is often correct, in an abortion musical.
We got the shot and drove south as dusk fell around city volunteers who were helping direct traffic in the power starved city. Shannonn shouted out compliments to them, and I was dropped off at Bloor street. I would take the bus home from there. But now I was back in reality.
That meant waiting at the curb with a huge cloud of people. When a completely full bus stopped and opened its doors perhaps only for air I gently shouldered my way in and I think I am the only one who bothered. As I flashed my bus pass and wormed my way in, I detected every un-breathable form of human smell combined into a new strain on stink. Every now and then the bus would stop to let in a gust of fresh smog. I considered trying to escape and walk, but luckily I stayed on my feet, people around me standing shoulder-to-shoulder-to-buttock, and eventually arrived at Danforth and Victoria Park where I could walk to my apartment.
I discovered new areas of the apartment complex by approaching from a hillside and into the wrong building from parking. A few neighbors or looters gave directions and eventually I climbed up the right thirteen flights to my apartment. I let the bathtub drip hoping that by morning there might be enough water for a cold bath. I would use a little dish soap, since I could find that. When I did bath after failing to fall asleep, it was like being in an isolation tank. But, unlike William Hurt in Altered States, I did not transform into a fetus at all. I still had to get up in the morning with total reliance on a wake-up call.

Day Two of Shoot: Friday 15 August, 2003
I listen for messages, call in to listen to other messages. It turns out that power is on at Shannonn’s, so we can shoot the washroom shot set-ups there in the morning. It was already the plan before the blackout that we would cheat Shannonn’s lavatory for that of the location. The actual washroom did not appear to be of the same design scheme as the kitchen set; also, a hallway outside Shannonn’s gave us just that much more space to back up.
Monika notices at the last second before we roll that the time hand on the egg timer is not set for twenty minutes as it is being placed in hiding, and thus saves the film from having its central story point over-looked. I am doing my own continuity, so as director I would have to fire myself.
By the time our washroom and bomb placement shots have been wrapped, we get word that the main location up in the suburbs has power back now. So the planned unit move goes onward and we set up at the house. Perhaps in the original schedule for day two, there might have been another exterior because for some reason the camera was converting for a daylight source. Our first shot of the house, an interior, was facing the sliding deck doors and it might have been thought that they should be the primary light source, but I notice while sitting through the video transfer that a tungsten window gel can be seen. Since the film is tungsten balanced, the gel should become invisible as it converts the daylight. The sliding half of the door is open for part of the shot, so the trade-off should have been a slightly blue look outside. Luckily, the problem must have been caught before the next set-up. In post, the editor Michelle Gurevich was able to reduce the orange of the gel but if someone really wants to look for technical flaws that shot is one that bugged me after the fact. At least nobody comments on it and it flies by unless I point it out like an idiot the way I am doing now. But I won’t say which scene it was.
John was able to bring in a grip and got him to remove a ceiling fixture that was causing reflection problems. It was placed onto a grip stand to place into scenes wherever it is required as dressing. Meanwhile, I find out John’s camera assistant Serhat Yalcinkaya worked on Chicago. If I engineer another SARS panic I will have the industry to myself. Just as planned.
We ate up some page space with a shot that holds on Anne for most of a scene despite the fact that much of the dialogue is off screen. Even after some off-screen dialogue has been trimmed, we are still able to stay on Anne for much of the camera run and cut only when the rhythm of the scene calls for it. This is the first leap of faith, testing the waters to see how the actors will do in long camera runs. It’s a great relief, since a director with a small shooting ratio and really only a week of good rehearsal time is really at the mercy of the concentration and preparation of the actors.
For a couple of shots of Linda, I felt instinctively that Bertha’s character should minimize any mundane walking around and should just appear. This is along the lines of the creepy housekeeper in O’Selznick and Hitchcock’s Rebecca, supposedly. But it is more accurate to say that the sudden appearance of characters was exaggerated more as a Warner Brothers / Bugs Bunny cartoon device (which is where I first saw it and where it is more obvious than the acclaimed film above. As Bertha is noticed by Anne, we would have sound designer Jason Matthews crate a burst of scare music. I found the specific sting on my copy of Halloween and then told Jason the clock time and he rented a copy to find the place. It is a very good, short adaptation of the effect. I complicated the next shot by planting Linda’s feet behind Dave and giving her an odd scolding finger gesture to go along with my loopy dialogue. That was good for a few bloopers that ended up in our end credit roll. Next we moved on to a silent shot of Dave catching groceries and putting them into the cupboard. I was not worried that he doesn’t synch to the song, since this shot could work as an all purpose cut-away from the reverse master of the song to be shot later. Only the strangeness of the movie allows us to get away with him silently working while his voice continues with Anne on the track.
During the song “If Only” there was originally not much written in terms of action. Even when I originally storyboarded it I had a few lame dance moves in mind but no activity or project the audience could follow. Shannonn suggested that the characters could be putting away groceries, because I had indicated a box of sanitary napkins on the counter as a simple joke. So I worked backwards from that adding the prop of a grocery bag. Now Anne would be arriving with her dad’s birthday cake box and a grocery bag. This gives Bertha a motivation to stay, and something to do during the song. She picks through Anne’s groceries like a raccoon, pretending to help. This motivates Ian and Anne to put away the groceries that minute.
By now we had less light outside but we didn’t have to see the windows. A synch bit requiring playback from another song was then done with Anne and Ian from the side.
Finally, we could excuse the actors and finish the day with images of the cutting of the fetus-shaped cake. I asked Monika to add a little smile on the fetus-cake. John remarked with a laugh, “I’ve said it before; You’re a sick man, Will.” I said thanks. I had to admit this particular shot was something I have talked to people about for a while and it was weird to finally see it shot. It was original to me when I first thought of it, but The Naked Gun has a similar effect with a Queen Elizabeth cake and I could also claim that it is an unconscious homage to Margaret Atwood’s first novel The Edible Woman, which unfortunately was not the story I expected.

Day Three of Shoot: Saturday 16 August, 2003
“It’s a cluster fuck,” John finally says, a bit of edge creeping into the smile. We have been waiting around the location for almost a couple of hours beyond our planned call time. I finally ring through to Shannonn’s cell and get a worse burst of anger as an answer: Turns out I needn’t have gotten off the Westbound bus at Yonge and I needn’t have stood waiting in a cold drizzle for the Northbound with all the puddle hopping to the location. I was supposed to go to Shannonn’s and be driven up to the set. The only thing stopping me from carving a big bloody “L” on my forehead (for La Rochelle) is that we haven’t heard from our make-up girl either. She is en route and caught in traffic, so the first shot would have come off at the same time even if I had been alert to every plan that flew past me on the wind last night. So besides being grateful for Sawsan Sibani being what Shannonn calls a “stealth make-up artist” I am also happy that she was held up in gridlock that morning.
We ate through some good pages today and got off a good axis change in a handheld shot I had hoped to have a ramp for originally. John managed a good, very tricky move. Most of the movie is fairly static, so this dynamic shot was necessary and is dictated by the content. While we imply Anne mooning her parents, we swing around behind them to imply that she is done by the time she resumes her argument. There is a moon photo on the wall just for that one reason, to help implant the idea of mooning, since we can’t show a butt (though the first pass of storyboards long ago did show that).
There is a slight light flare, which was hard to spot on set over the video tap but nothing that anyone has drawn to my attention. If we had a ramp behind the parents to see over them toward Anne, the final angle would have been pointing down more and there would have been no flare. But at least John was operating and he is (like most people) taller than me. If I had to perform the shot, it would have been a full shot of lights hanging from a grip stand.
As Anne takes over the gun in a big stand-off scene, there might have been a slight drift of the pan control between my sign off on the shot and the final take. Seeing the final film, John agrees this might have happened. So I can point to the drifting pan if people say my direction is too rigid. I don’t like corrective moves during a take, so I generally say pan and tilt should be locked off. But the energy of the scene is still the same even if the final placement of the actors in the frame feels just a hair off to me. There was a good reaction from crew over performances in this scene. I even recall people clapping.
I notice we caught some interesting behind-the-scenes footage due to my forgetting to turn off the video assist unit. Scanning through the High 8 tapes, it is interesting to watch Julie Hall attend to Dave’s costume and Sawson touch up his make-up. This is in a shot where Dave has to do a “Groucho” and squat to arrange a clock behind his head like a halo. A couple of people watching the film have pointed it out as if it were an accident. It’s interesting to see that we are all being deliberate, down to the napkins in Dave’s collar to protect the rented doctor’s lab coat from make-up smears as Julie and Sawson buzz around him. Or maybe they only appear to buzz because they are on high speed search. I don’t know if I could go back to my own one-man productions after having good crews on my last two films.
I’ve also noticed that other than hello there isn’t much that has to be said to the sound recordist Edward Hue and his boom operator Brent Stewart. They seem to have their approach worked out, working around the frame. I was intimidated by sound initially, and I’m happy the tracks are so clean. My fear of inter-cutting is one reason I chose to avoid covering each actor in close-up, time and film being other factors. I was paranoid enough to imagine that I might be tempted by a sale to cut an offensive joke if need be and so I am pretty much deliberately painting myself into an all-or-nothing corner.
There are a few little flourishes as characters come in and out of songs or fantasy embellishments and crash back into reality. I’m glad I storyboarded so that every little whip-move of the camera can be ticked off of a checklist when we are lit for the proper section of the set. The one scene where I felt a little tug of improvisation tension is in a scene involving a bit of handheld moves involving a coat hanger, buttering a bun, not wanting to cut the cake, and finally the introduction of a spider. The writing basically has to ask a lot of the audience here in terms of filling in blanks or following the content itself. But I couldn’t bring myself to cut anything here, even though it may seem to be a speed bump. There is a coat rack bar placed beyond the actors so I have an excuse to have Anne offer Bertha a hander as she takes her shawl.
That might be where I was asked if I want the rack put up. . . although I believe they used an adhesive, and I’m not sure how a hole got into the wallpaper. If it was a high hole, it must have been to move over the clock for a shot. I didn’t see any hammers in evidence, but it didn’t make the homeowner any less peeved when she found a nail hole. I think we had to compensate for that and have the carpet cleaned in an area we were not to trespass upon. As for the carpet thing, I did find crew set up in that area, but I think that rule breakage was good for the film and worth the added location expense for carpet cleaning.
I took a leap in terms of camera direction and axis change by cutting to what should be Anne’s view of a spider crawling on the table. It should seem to crawl toward her, but we zoom out to reveal we are on the other side and it is crawling away.
Mark had designed a crawling spider using a magnet under the table and it was great when he demonstrated it. Monika wrangled it for the take and I should have given her more than one kick at the cat. The move is one part of a very long camera run that includes Anne singing a song.
Monika wanted to see the spider, so the video monitor was placed under the table. I got as comfortable as possible there on the floor during the take. I don’t know if Monika remained there beside me or whether she felt it was safer to fly blind. John made a comment about me being on the floor, “You have to suffer for your art. I know I sure am.” I replied, to clarify, “You’re suffering for my art.” He said, “I wasn’t going to say that, but. . .”
Ultimately, if I could redo this, the one change I would make is that I would have done one additional angle, perhaps at table level, on the spider so there was more scurrying and more chance to see it work. This is one case where my efficient shot functions were too strict. On the monitor, the spider movement was fine. It scurries a bit, then stops, perhaps in fear. I didn’t have time to scrutinize it on the monitor until we had moved on. I saw what I wanted to see. It was a well-conceived gag. But by tying too many functions into a shot I sold it short. I was too busy being amazed that in the rest of the one-take shot Anne managed to synch an entire song and hold our attention long enough that a cut-away was not needed. A lot of things had to come together in that shot and I was happy with where the actors ended up, but the spider deserved a better fate, even apart from being squashed, snuff-movie style. Her children complained and threatened a lawsuit right before they ate her.
The last scene of the film was an even longer camera run and mostly dialogue. Big day for props. Mark and Monika provided and prepared a gestation tank with a near-birth fetus inside.
Once John and the lights were set, I had to thank the crew and advise them that the actors needed a few more minutes to drill the lines. Again, I wanted confident readings, faithful to my every fantastic typo. At a certain point, where it was just a matter of getting over the words and getting trouble sections right, I would be firm and make the actor in question repeat the lines insanely and quickly over and over. Then I let the group of them drill the lines quickly and just walked away for a while once they started getting back on track. I did storyboard an implied version of the spit-take that begins the shot, assuming that we wouldn’t want the actor to make a mess on the camera or crew.
I think Shannonn questioned this cop-out, arguing that there is entertainment value in people spitting up. It may have been her idea to put crushed crackers into Linda’s mouth to help illustrate the lumpiness of sour milk her character has ingested. As footage was assembled, Shannonn suggested that the gestation tank had not been featured enough with more of a close-up. We discussed that, then I ended up asking the editor Michelle if Final Cut Pro could generate a glowing, pulsing special effect around the tank. I was surprised with the result, which also helps boost the lights that Mark had already set into the tank itself. There is not question that the audience eyes are drawn to the tank and its occupant. It gets a reaction. A last minute storyboard on the shoot day was a quick cut-away of Bertha touching her chin in thought. This was to be used just before the “explosion” shot, as the homage to Peter Cushing as arrogant architect of an SDI-like space station before his creation blows up. I won’t say whether it means culpability or Bertha waking from debate only now remember the deadly reason for her visit. Maybe it’s just another cheap Star Wars reference to book-end the film.
Ian turns his head, cringing at the spit . . . a knife is twirled in anticipation of expert cake cutting. Then a long master of dialogue surrounding the cake scene and a cut-in of passing a pill.
Here I ran into a continuity problem because I intended again to shoot only one long shot. When I improvised by suggesting a close-up of the pill being passed, I could then not return to the master shot right after that. I would have to get another angle, a close-up of Bertha receiving and sniffing the pill, so that the wide shot would have emphatic purpose as a double-reaction shot. I would have to wait until we were set up on the other side of the room the following day.
Under the gun, we took Bertha’s pill-sniffing close-up, which was great, in one take. I should have taken the time to watch playback to confirm Linda’s memory of which hand she used. So there is a continuity error, but I guess the pacing and content help distract from it. I still needed to use that reaction shot from the master for a mock-suspense beat of music which could lead in to a commercial.I decided to work the possible breaks into the script and storyboards so that they would not have to be imposed inappropriately by a broadcaster in the future.
By now I think the day was winding down. We were a little behind in what we had hoped to have shot, but the light had dwindled. We tried to turn around and face the deck door again for a shot of the freedom pads on the countertop, but John stated that we were pooched for sunlight. Though it was dimmer outside, I insisted on a take but we would end up redoing it the following day anyway. The character of the outdoors was too far gone. Dark was dark. The last thing we were able to shoot required seeing no windows. It was from the hallway, showing Dave as Ian cross with a coffee mug. It meant establishing the door handle of the washroom in foreground. Mark had removed Shannonn’s door handle and the knob of the location washroom door, which opened on the wrong side. Now Monika had to mount Shannonn’s handle onto the location door. The Set Foreman Daniel Gibbs crouched nearby before the take and held the handle against the door hoping whatever tape or adhesive would hold while the camera ran. He let go, and the take went fine.
Set Foreman was I believe a title made up by Shannonn for Dan, who had arrived as a surprise to me. I didn’t want an Assistant Director, because I was doing many of those tasks. He was on the phone to Shannonn a lot. Someone who didn’t make the cut of the crew heard the story and said to me, “So, she brought in a mole.” In fact, this interaction demonstrates that Shannonn had a good instinct for who to hire and who to filter out. I think Dan was a hard worker and I’m glad we had him around. Very over-qualified for his job. I still do feel that everyone moved at exactly the right pace and that I’m never motivated by time-stamps or contrivances of pressure. It’s bad for my nerves; just one more thing to tune out. Some people show tension up front, but directors have to filter it so there is no destructive stress for the cast and crew.
Speaking of good crew members, I believe Edward Hue dropped me off home and picked me up the following morning.

Final Day of Shoot: Sunday 17 August, 2003
This was a marathon day. Shannonn repeated cheerfully that there would be no fifth day of the shoot. Whatever the deadline, all we can do is one shot after the other. At the time I was reading “The Tao of Pooh” which is about dealing with what is in front of you at the moment.
We started with a retake of the shot from the previous day where we had lost the daylight. Much better now. We are now entirely doing shots that face the door this morning. We will get through some pages. One thing that got by me as continuity is that we forgot to ask the grip to put the ceiling fixture back up. He couldn’t be here today. Since most of the shots don’t show that part of the ceiling, it never enters my mind. There is one shot where an empty ceiling is visible, but the eye isn’t led to it. Still, I notice it and I regret that I neglected to note it until the homeowners arrived that night and saw it out of place. I know it was handled with care, but they perhaps did not.
As a family the characters sway, putting groceries away and singing. Linda was given some business by choreographer Michelle shaking a box of noodles, for which the foley will be carefully added in by Jason. When I told people I was doing a musical I heard about “tie downs” and various contraptions which would make it prohibitively expensive to synch actors to their vocal tracks. We have gotten away with having Edward basically press play on a CD player.
For the dialogue leading into “A Little Bit Pregnant,” we have to see artwork on the fridge apparently done by Ms Anne Thrope as a child. It's actually artwork of one of John Lindsay’s kids that was happily supplied. I needed it to fill the first third of the frame so there wouldn’t be a gap, so Dan and other crew pulled the fridge carefully out from the wall a bit.
For a scene where Linda has to begin in the foreground addressing the camera, spin away to reveal Dave, and then reappear on another focal plane where Dave is; the crew rigged a little platform over the kitchen sink island so Linda could climb over off screen.
I insisted that some of the island be visible in frame so it would be impossible and unexpected for Bertha to reappear in the same shot. The scene ends with all three cast dancing back to the door with a little step and head turn which the actors had worked out with Michelle. I think in rehearsal I said, “It needs to end with some kind of end move.” I think Linda added the head-turn and pivot and Michelle refined it.
When it came time for a shot following Anne to the washroom where the bomb is, Shannonn’s handle had to be attached to the door again. I think this time had a more durable method. No damage done. But at the start, Bertha returns a pill to Anne. We had to do another take because Linda – and I’m not picking on her – mimed the pill instead of asking props for it. I was a little agog at this, although it is funny. That’s why I say people should never fear asking silly questions. Like, “Where did I put my prop?”
After eight set-ups, we had a lunch break in the back yard.
I had planned to have the family march around the living room. I had already cut one of three shots from the sequence for time. Shannonn asked “Are you sure you don’t need it? Are you sure.” And I was sure, until post when Michelle reported that I didn’t have enough picture to fit the song. This was where we were able to pop in the non-singing option of the family tableau from the intro. But one good decision came when I realized it was a shame we didn’t have shots to exploit the lovely back yard of this property so why not shoot the living room stuff out there.
I spoke to John and Shannonn about this time-saver. The scene works much better as a fantasy outdoors anyway. The content was mainly a march. Anne, Dave and Linda wear sunglasses and hard hats for no other reason than a Norman Jewison reference, this one from Jesus Christ Superstar. Shannonn grabbed a pair of glasses from a crew member and mixed and matched making sure each actor was fitted.
The biggest challenge of the scene was the use of a picket as an axe. Don’t ask. Or don’t axe.
Anne has a good close-up rubbing her eyes full of tears in reaction to the silly violence. Ironically, she has demonstrated that she is one of those actresses who can cry on command. It might be worthwhile to utilize that skill in a more serious dramatic film some day.
Back into the house. A low synch shot looking up at Linda. “A Little Bit Pregnant.” She asks me about a “silly rumor” she heard: “Are the shots are being arranged to let Anne leave early and hold me here till the end?” I wonder how this got started and who the leak is to this conspiracy. I tell her no. Anne does end up wrapping first, and Linda does have her opening scene as the final scene shot, but Anne ends up staying around and helping until the end. So clearly Anne had no master plan of skipping out. She was totally dedicated.
Somebody remarked that Anne’s hair style is similar to Wednesday Addams. This is cool, since the film, "Addams Family Values" is a favourite of mine.
For the song Abortion Lullaby, John had the lights on a dimmer and I believe Shannonn crouched and spun the disco ball nearby so sparkles would appear. Here is another of those leaps of faith. It would be easy to stumble, but Linda makes it through the whole song in one long take. I believe I showed her the video tap to assure her it went well. Shannonn has commented that the song is disturbing and has been giving her nightmares. Exxxcelent.
Next, is a close shot of the fridge being opened by Linda’s hand, retrieving a milk carton and revealing for the first time the gestation tank and its occupant. There is a little camera noise, so the dialogue and sound effects are recorded without camera as well as in synch.
A small portion of the family room did end up lit, for a few quick shots of Dave as Ian. I slightly regret backing off on my idea of having a gun lay beside Ian’s head as he is curled up on a sofa, but that might have played as misinformation. Also, a bullet hole created by Mark for the scene could have had a close-up, but I thought it would read in the medium shot. Had I done a close-up, I wonder with the dwindling light whether it would have been in sharp focus. Okay. I could have started close and then whip-zoomed out before Dave pokes at it.
We moved the last stray members of crew into the basement, where Mark had set up a confessional using a closet he had found. So the location scouting didn’t stop at the location. John asked me to art direct the piece of felt that was hanging above the closet and the curtain emerged.
We had been able to wrap the kitchen pretty much on time, but this left a handful of people with us downstairs and a few people relaxing outside and nobody actually restoring the kitchen to the way we found it. Shannonn I think arrived around the same time as the homeowners. Care was taken to look after the location, but items like the ceiling fixture perhaps made our presence look more dramatic at first glance.
The homeowner Grace was polite and said she’d be interested in seeing the final film. I said me too. I guess Shannonn got the brunt of her complaints. But she was invited to the Grace’s script-reading club; I was not.
When Linda’s opening scene was done, that left shots of the bomb, and a disco ball to top it all off. We hustled stuff out of the house, cleaning what we could. John stayed in for the camera alignment chart, and then we all sat in a circle outside lit only by maybe one movie light, since the family was retiring and we were not allowed back inside.
It was a pretty positive post mortem. I’ve been on a lot of sets and I was happy how sane and focused this one had been. Hard work all around, but personally necessary and a good way to spend my days off.