Various Shorts from the recent past

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

30 Years a "Director"

2014 marked 30 years since directing the first video short I had aired back in 1984. I may be repeating myself, but since it is unlikely that the reader has combed through all my blogs, this won't likely seem redundant. It cycles around in my head anyway, so it all remains current. Ten years in, it was 1994 when I graduated the Humber College three-year program in Film and Television Production. Ten Years after that was kid of a pivotal year, 2004. By then I had started over somewhat and I had a Bravo!Fact short Klepto the Clown and an Ontario Arts Council Emerging Artists grant for my 22-minute short musical satire Big Babies. I had joined the Liaison of Independent Filmmakers of Toronto (LIFT) in 2003 and had taken over that year as instructor for LIFT's Directing Actors For the Camera course, which was an interesting experience I embraced; I ended up calling some of the students back for a free additional class once the camera actually became available. Would have been handy in the actual two-day class. 2004 also involved some fallout from taking someone at her word and not yet understanding the pitfalls of collaboration that may be unique to one unfortunate case. I took a workshop in Legal and Business Affairs for Filmmakers and Producers, but it would have been more handy a year previous. Everything must be in writing in terms of what is expected and what volunteers are agreeing to. It's not enough to say here is the square peg of a movie I plan to make and here is the round hole of money I plan to spend. I can pat myself on the head for being right in the abstract, but I would have preferred to anticipate and protect myself better. Sometimes people avoid bidding on a job offering to volunteer for work that a production can't afford to properly reward anyway. I also that year spoke out and let myself be the lightning rod for criticism when I questioned the founders of a film troop raising money ostensibly for the group and then deciding to spend it all on one of their own personal projects without subjecting it to vote. Money can be a real monster. Those funds were earmarked for at least four unspecified shorts to be voted on by the collective. Time has healed most of those wounds, but I'm sure at least one ally of my adversaries then went on to actively badmouth me and continues to be a dreadful person. 2004 is also the most recent date for a directing credit I have on imdb.com. I finished out that year with a barium enema and colonoscopy, appropriately enough, the results of which were apparently mishandled and lost -- which I did not discover until a year of inquiries passed and 2006 began. 2006 brought the passing of my dad from cancer and a loss of interest in a screenwriter's circle at LIFT and also the drowning death of Roberto Arigenello at LIFT who had been such a community-binding figure there. A couple of years passed where I continued renewing my membership, but I was not as active with the group. It also changed locations, which seemed to mark the new era even more firmly. Flashback to 2005 which contained one dialogue-heavy script that I let someone else direct, which turned out okay once the chore of editing finally fell to me, and a mind-reading adventure feature that I tried a few times to shoot with Super 8mm film and which I recast and re-started at least 3 times. Having our own cameras and editing software can be the difference between one or two years. 2005 also brought my diagnosis of type-two diabetes, which explained bouts of sleepiness. I continued to get short films and videos accomplished over the next few years and used some night shifts to evolve my screenplays and other writing and storyboard sketches. Without that. I might have been in limbo. 2014 has meant some progress and closure to writing projects and a sense of new energy and focus. An aneurism from late 2011 did not put me down for good; instead, it might have goosed me into improving projects that had stalled. It put off some work that might have gone into improving a 2010 short The Fashion of the Christ, which is currently still having its audio replaced due to my mistake of using the built-in mic of my Canon XH-A1. At this point, I need to get momentum and a sense of mission again. Movie writing and directing are not a "hobby" for me. They are my vocation. I still have a job insecurity, but if that erodes my identity then I'll be dead in the most significant sense. Life in 2015 as I enter the forth decade of my relationship with movie-making it has to be more than an unrequited obsession. In October of 2013, a directing workshop I paid to attend frankly stated that "people get hired to direct if they are the sort of person the producer wants to have a beer with after a shoot." That seems evident by much of the TV we see, and by the apparent new normal where storyboarding is rare and the cinematographer may be coming up with the shots (or calling them). If this is the case, I'll continue to be the odd man out. I like and respect storyboarding and I say it's okay that the "cut" is implied or forced by it. The frame and the cut are critical tools of the director, and merely to "cover" a scene in "real time" is just not interesting or cinematic. Hypocritically, I will end up doing a feature this year -- which will indulge in what Hitchcock called, "Pictures of people talking." But even that will contain a few careful cuts or moves that might make it more than the close-ups, overs, and establishing shot that will carry the bulk of it. I've transferred some updated copies of my footage from Klepto the Clown, Big Babies, and a film short from 1994 this past year for the internet and posterity in general. There was a 2014 20-year reunion of some of my Humber classmates. They seem to be doing well and most of them still keeping a foot or more in the movie industry. I feel like I have a toe in it. Another issues that caused reflection was that a screenplay I wrote for during my time at Humber for an independent filmmaker (around 1991-1993) was produced in 2011 and released in 2014 without giving me proper credit for co-writing nor any money. I still have to sit down and air my grievances about that, which I should have done during Festivus. Meanwhile, I have tried stand-up comedy for the first time, and though I don't know if it will be a lifestyle or craft that I cultivate, I can if it helps position me or goose me with my movie-making. But even visiting home for the holidays I am reminded how it can be an effort to even coral family members to co-operate with a short. Even reaching back to original resources can be a stretch. It is just so easy to put things off that maybe there is nothing wrong with being a nag and beig willing to inconvenience people. There are qualities I took for granted in my youth which can be replaced all to easy with neurotic second-guessing and self-negating faux etiquette. There will be people who accommodate an idea or a prank or a project. The point is to keep looking and maybe cast the net wide.

story pitching

The Direct Approach

Insist on reading an outline before looking at a complete draft of a script. Whether it is my own or someone else’s, the most vital screenwriting problems can be found at the plot and outline stage. But even then, there isn’t any trace of the “werewolf” story in this partially shot music video I did (now taken from a VHS but originally shot on ¾ inch) just before heading off to college. The singer felt he had grown from the song he had composed and recorded, and the werewolf shots were never done even though the relationship stuff looks pretty good. Keeping the end in mind, ask yourself what would make the finished product less than the sum of its parts and the experience of directing a disappointment, if not a colossal waste. Make sure that Murphy’s Law and Step #2 are discussed thoroughly with each prospective team member so that your hands are not tied by politics or process. Ensure that there is a protocol in place where a sign-off by the director is required. Obviously my own illustrations are nothing amazing, but storyboarding helps me think. And I think they can become a common frame of reference – you need THIS shot in order for THAT shot to answer it. If storyboarding is part of your process, do it and have it as a reference point. A commentary by Mike Nichols referred to “that terrible thing of making the cinematographer watch a list of movies” so showing frame grabs to save time if there is a specific look might be preferred; as long as you know there is a common frame of reference; you may cite a movie or piece of artwork and not remember it the same. Altman and Mel Brooks had a copy of the Last Supper on hand to restage it; Van Sant had frames from Psycho for his shot for shot remake. Storyboards may not be in fashion, but showing up cold expecting to be “inspired by the set” is an abdication of authority and may likely result in the most standard default coverage positions. Some directors feel there are two kinds of shots – basic or fancy, the latter being automatic wankery that distracts instead of adds to audience involvement. But used correctly, there may be ONE best shot position for each beat or moment or line in a scene, so the fact that an eighth of a page of script is “covered” by another camera does not mean that the filmmaking communication is complete. The frame and relationships between set, background, and actors all combine for the message and the tone or counterpoint you intend. If someone feels that close-ups of faces are the end-all be-all of shooting a scene, it may not require a director. It is pictures of people talking and may not be worth fighting for. Yet – some shows with simple script formats like Castle get by on close-up coverage and still manage to do it with style on occasion. Your eyes just have to be open as to whether you have an up-hill battle. Better to really test a director by removing dialogue and having to tell the story with the frame. Use them to anticipate shots on a scout as a way to choose or eliminate locations and/or refine boards The often quoted Art of War says that a battle is won or lost before it has begun. But even if it is a simple 30 second short like this one, you can talk through the basic shot sequence and beats of it. I have been starting to make some shorts for the hell of it while planning other things partly to get others engaged in making something. In 2005 I generated a lot of footage intended for a feature and then had to cancel it. I used some of it in this video, which seems artsy and meaningful even though it is the equivalent of home movies now. Here is a video short I made in 1992 during a couple of days of summer vacation. Day one was an early morning for the main shoot and then day two was just an hour with the hitchhiker getting a few shots. Those were the good old days where you just need a few people who are game enough to wake up early and make something up. I had to borrow the camera and equipment from the community channel, and a skeleton from the biology department of my highschool, and the car from one of my sisters. The ending is less funny once I tried to get a copy of the movie to the hitchhiker when visiting town between semesters. I had called his dad asking for him a couple of times before someone at the TV station told me the young man had a run-in with mobsters and ended up at the bottom of Lake Nippissing. I was deeply saddened by that, since I thought I should somehow know and I usually made movies with friends for recreation and hoped to have everyone be able to enjoy them, done as a lark. This is a short 16mm doc I co-directed in third semester of Humber College in the early 90’s. There was some controversy mainly about a swish-pan transition that occurs at the 1:20 mark. The camera guy and the editor both said they knew what I meant (and had storyboarded and typed up verbally) in terms of how it works, then they omitted it. So I asked our crew producer if I could recut what had been left out to redeem myself. I fixed it, got major flack for that, but I DON’T REGRET IT. Unless you defend a direction, you will end up looking crazy. You have to vindicate yourself, and if someone has LIED that they KNEW what you meant, and then they left you hanging out to dry then I say fight that battle. In the aftermath, I was asked by the same crew to direct their drama project that year, below. Board Beyond Belief I know that when Dumb and Dumber began shooting, the directors told the crew “Look, we don’t know what the hell we’re doing when it comes to filming so we are counting on you to cover our asses.” I would love to be able to start things off on the right foot with key crew and disarm them and motivate them with such a charming disclosure. They say that if a director comes off like a know-it-all auteur he/she will be crucified by the crew. All the more reason to kick things off in a modest way. But even though I am a savant who is lucky to have graduated high school, and even though I want everyone to know I am approachable and that they can play devil’s advocate and point out things I may have overlooked, I personally must be fussy about the frame and the cut. I want that challenge. The blocking of actors and the placement of the frame are not arbitrary and I feel that I have a lifetime absorbing what I consider film grammar and the meaning that can be taken (whether or not it is intended) by what is shown and how it is introduced and whether something is withheld. As I present people with a script, it is not because I think the actors can’t think of different or better dialogue but because I wish to hear this dialogue have life breathed into it and because I consider the subtle influence of an actors habits of being and body language and inflection that they bring as just as important as generating new dialogue and that I do not want a performer to have the breaks on and be in writing mode by the time of shooting but to have surrendered to the text and committed to it and be free to focus naturally on the other elements of performance. By the same token, if the cinematographer and production designer and set decorator and costume department can see my storyboards early on then the way in which elements will blend or clash or give contrast will be known and choices can be informed; If a camera move – a pan or a tilt – requires vertical information or horizontal information to make a blur of action this can be planned in advance rather than discovered in a panic on set and having choices replaced by compromise. It is said that the more the director can be open about a “vision” the better chance of getting it across and the crew feeling that the project is controlled in a responsible way that respects everyone’s time and input. I reject passionately the idea that a director must withhold storyboards because they will offend the DP or because they imply a cut which will offend the editor. My priority is as described here. I want people on the team who are great at their job and don’t have to concentrate on second-guessing my job. If you like a shot choice or a strange editing gimmick in something where my only credit is directing, I’d like to know that it is there by design as directed by me. If I am very concerned about politics with an editor, then I can hire only an assistant editor and explain that I am the defector editor so that I avoid frustrating that person or myself – and then reward the person with the sole editing credit. The same cannot be done with a D.P.. The personality just has to be the right fit. Although even if you have worked with someone before, it is wise to consider giving every prospective crew member a copy of this. If you are very organized, you can make sure they read and sign it when you are getting each person to sign a crew or volunteer contract or a talent release. It can be surprising the basic and seemingly obvious aspects of filmmaking that don’t get nailed down or that cause confusion because people do not want to seem self-serving, arrogant, condescending, or in any way insulting to the intelligence of the other person. But it is worth that risk to be clear, and when the movie is done on budget and on time and people are amused and proud of the way it all fits together it won’t matter if you are called a power freak. It is also worth noting that even if people say “yes, I understand this – OF COURSE!” and look at you with indignity, they may not understand and/or may have undisclosed intentions or motives. There is little to be done about that. The gold that backs up the currency of my determination to follow a vision is the memory of past projects where I didn’t and the sure knowledge that the end product I live for is what must be protected and what my FRIENDS and my TRUE ALLIES will also wish to defend. Anything else is a mind-f**k from people with their own agendas and people who can not conceive of someone actually being the author of an entire movie. But you also in turn have to be vigilant. If you want to use a device from the editing toolbox, be sure that people know what you need. The driver of a car that has to drive through frame TWICE must be told before he rides away from the location. The blind spot will be delegation, trust, politeness – anything that causes you to stifle a direction. Maybe a short-hand will be developed with certain crew. And so will misunderstandings. Here's part of Bit Babies, a musical satire I did with an Ontario Arts Council Emerging Artists grant (as part of the budget) back in 2003/4, partly during the August 2003 blackout: There are good reasons and false reasons to be involved in the support crew of a movie. Money and/or credit and/or experience I consider valid. Same goes for producing. A false reason might be personal self expression. The writer, the director or a performer can count expression as a true reason, and they should not have to announce their need for it; it can be taken for granted. Other contributors to a movie are involved in practical or logistical and objective work that keeps the project at a professional quality. Undisclosed expectations are usually at the root of dissatisfaction, so it is recommended that this be ironed out in advance of a project. A Cinematographer may demand autonomy and refuse to look at storyboards. No matter how gifted he/she is at shooting and lighting, this would negate working with me. A cinematographer might even help fight for a shot the director has pre-designed when there is a time crunch and pressure to drop it. The above point might be considered weak because there is a perception that the personality of a director is one who dives in and gets his/her way in the moment and on the day by constant negotiation and finesse and not because of a pre-arranged rule or principle. That is of little concern to me, since reduction of conflict on set is of central concern and the audience will not care who did what or how a production came together. But this below example is me throwing out many of my rules because I had a small window to do a stunt/short when I had access to the old Maple Leaf Gardens before the old pad was cored and demolished. I had cast an actor for a Jesus short and before we got around to that I thought I would ask him to pop in during lunch for 10 minutes to be the LAST PERSON to skate on the MLG pad. (Even if it is roller blades, because the ice from Battle of the Blades was goneis gone.) Officially this didn't happen. I had to run around hand-held and just get whatever shots I could of this unofficial visit. I as a director I usually need to be convinced that even my own plan is worth doing and has a cinematic quality and conveys usually a whimsical tone that is implied by the content. In the marrow of my bones, I feel how easy it is for something to feel bland. The content will be the way it is anticipating the way it will be shot. The cut and the frame and the camera move or stillness are all part of the communication, from shot to shot.