Pitch: The Curse of Cursing

A movie star participating in home building with Habitat for Humanity is videotaped by a budding paparazzi who catches the moment where the star accidentally hammers his thumb and mutters, "Goddamn it!" The clip is posted on-line and causes religious groups to boycott the star for exposing his true beliefs against God and various faiths weigh in to denounce him and make sure his new films and TV shows are boycotted. He gives an apology and cops to the fact that yes under stress his true feelings are revealed and submits to an interview with Jerry Springer who is the only arbiter of truth and agrees to let someone hammer his hand for extreme pain before each answer. But the process fails and with a crushed hand and spirit he is visited by Jesus who offers to smite them all. He has mercy on his tormenters and decides only to let Jesus kill the paparazzi - not just the one who posted the video but every site and gossip rag. It is a bloodbath. Cameras explode, just enough to envelope their operators. Red carpets become even redder, purely with paparazzi blood, with the celebrities all spared the carnage. I don't guarantee there would be an audience for this, but I have a feeling there might be some support.

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.

Filmmaker Commentary Tracks and their Usefulness

They say listen to people who are doing what you want to do. So I’m surprised that it is in fashion to disrespect the opportunity provided by the better DVD commentaries. I don’t buy a DVD generally unless there is a commentary. They can be long, but at least like radio or a podcast you can listen while doing other things. Here are a few samples. Control – distinguishing between the actor’s “journey as a human being” as opposed to honoring the character and function of the story. David Fincher commentary on various films Ridley Scott – commentary from Thelma and Louise is very worth hearing Beyond these, I’d recommend Aranovski’s commentary for Requiem for a Dream which gets into the why of some shot choices. For example, it would not have occurred to me that in a restaurant dialogue scene the person with more depth and background behind him/her has the “authority” in the scene. Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan) gives good commentary on his disks, Frank Darabont’s commentaries on Shawshank, Green Mile and The Mist are very informative, any movie on which Walter Murch was editor or sound he might have a separate commentary for his own discipline, The Conversation, for example, which breaks things down more than the director commentary. Writer/actor Emma Thompson has her own commentary on Sense and Sensibility which is more worthwhile than the director’s track for Sense and Sensibility. If you only have time to hear one commentary on Citizen Kane, choose the Roger Ebert version which is very informative and especially useful to film students. Roger Deacons the cinematographer from Fargo gets to provide its only commentary track, but he lets you know how the shots came about and his process with the meticulous Coen brothers as well as the truth about the “true story” card at the beginning. Some directors do embrace commentary tracks for the sake of posterity and use the time efficiently, while others admittedly seem to recline and wax nostalgic with actors and may not have screened the film in years or planned an approach to the track nor had anything to get off the chest. Haskell Wexler Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Audio Commentary is very detailed, best listened to if you are already familiar with Mike Nichols’ first feature but the descriptions by Wexler are detailed enough that you can imagine the set-ups and situations explained.

Inventory of my VHS tapes

You know that you've got way too much free time when you are making a video of your old video tapes. I also see and hear enough little glitches that I can't ignore that it's time to do something about my editing software. Either I need more memory or something fatal has caused a halting fault in the previews. Takes a lot longer than it should. But I figure if I don't post this it will be a waste instead of an investment in time. Like my investment in some VHS tapes. Mostly Hollywood stuff, and only one Toronto indie filmmaker represented.

Movie Cops

Just a few random thoughts about film. I suppose this is about two movie cops, a dirty one from Rampart and a heroic one from Die Hard 5, as well as the third kind of cops - the ones in the audience policing the product. There are two movies I took a long time to see because of their reputation. A) too much hand-held b) poor story structure. ***Those are the charges against Rampart and A Good Day To Die Hard, anyway. People had represented Rampart as something I wouldn’t like on the basis of not having a clear structure or a point or resolution. I watched it on DVD and then listened to the commentary. The movie is how it should be and is a character piece that is reminiscent of Taxi Driver in the sense that is compelling because of the performances despite your unwillingness to identify. The last couple of images may not have been part of the original plan but they do bring to mind the final images of Taxi Driver – main character at the wheel of a car, close-up, unsettled, and the view of street lights ahead under ending credits. One scene in particular comes to mind in terms of choices, a sand dune obscures the lower frame and some of the action in a way that is effective between Woody Harrelson and Ned Beatty. Another scene between them in a restaurant photographs them from outside the booth in a way that might bring to mind a confessional. Apparently the plan was to obscure Woody’s cop character “Date Rape” Dave Brown as the movie progresses. I like the fact that creative decisions have been made despite the argument these days that every scene also has to be shot with close-ups of anyone speaking – which a network or studio may default to if they feel young audiences (or those watching on small devices) will become restless unless they see full screen faces. Any time a scene survives that requires the audience to lean forward and pay attention and imagine what is happening just out of frame it is a victory for the creative process, whether it comes 100% from the director or other crew and cast have fought for it. Also, strange is the tendency of reviewers (especially on-line reviewers) to police the format as to whether the movie has a straight-line Syd Field/Robert McKee three act structure with day-glow plot-points and turning points and the beats of audience rooting interest firmly in place. Those rules may be helpful for screenwriters editing their stories and refining them in terms of how much time is devoted to a given story element, but they are mostly popular as tools for non-writers, executives, gate-keepers, official readers to say no to a script and have some sort of handy lingo to justify it. Also to sell books and seminars. It is distressing that so many people attacked this film for not following lock-step with screenwriting dogma. (I once participated in a screenwriting circle in which the leader/host pinned me down to define the word dogma. In the Catholic church for example, it would be an edict or a regulation that comes from man but is not attributed to Jesus so it is questionable. And example would be “don’t eat meat on Friday.” In scriptwriting, there is the semantic distinction between rules and principles. One guru says there must be a resolution of events that create a catharsis and closure. Another says that it is more important to leave the reader somewhat frustrated and deny them closure so that there will be discussion and contemplation of the film and the fate of the characters for days or weeks after the final fade out.) A Good Day to Die Hard starring Bruce Willis returning as John McClanewas not a bad movie. It was not expected to be on a par with the original or even the second one, despite the good marketing tag line, “Yippy kayee, Mother Russia .” It may even be a missed opportunity. Bonnie Bedelia has been absent from these films since the second movie, despite seeming to have kept herself up well judging by her role on the latest Parenthood TV series. This can only be the Hollywood adage that a male action star is only as old as his leading lady. So home and hearth here is represented by Lucy McClane the daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is underused here but helps frame the story’s departure, initiation, return format. The movie could have remained more or less the same and kept the same casting of Jai Courtney as Jack or John McClane Jr. but could have easily added in another layer of social relevance that might have been timely with a few more lines of dialogue. Suppose the estrangement of John and his son is not just that the elder McClane spent too much time focused on work and ignored his family. Suppose his son was gay and that was the reason he was in the Russian jail. Can’t help thinking that must have been discussed in story conferences. That might have been a plausible rift for old-school crank McClane. But nobody was calling for that. The movie was attacked in ways that seemed reasonable. Chris Stuckman posted a detailed evaluation of the movie (below) in addition to his usual review. I was impressed by this approach to a practical essay, and the arguments behind it persuaded me not to see Die Hard 5 or A Good Day to Die Hard. I had seen the previous one Live Free or Die Hard opening weekend in a theater partially because Kevin Smith had been cast as “Warlock” an internet genius of sorts. Between movies, there was of course a falling out between Willis and Smith so likely no Warlock. I recently caught the on DVD and although it is not as good as the previous film it is not a disaster either. In fairness I think some of even Stuckman’s points are just not right. I don’t think the director did an awful job. There was a lot of hand-held, which I can live without, but that might have been for expedience since I can hardly believe they let so much of the action be filmed in Russia. In any case, I did not notice the directing except that it seemed to communicate what was intended. Willis was said to have come across as sour throughout the film as if he did not want to be there and that there were no jokes or quips. That turns out to not be correct. I wanted to believe that because of the Smith rift, but the character does pretty much retain his humor. No big laughs, but the attempt is there and even the can scene “Are you American?” “Yeah.” Is a different take of that exchange, which had him sit up and say “Yeah” with a patriotic pride. The scene is more loose and friendly in the actual movie. The claim is also made that the bad guys, who they are and what they are after are confusing. I found this not to be the case. No plot point breakthroughs, but the kind of underhanded characters and the shape-shifter archetypes are represented. The running time is shorter than the past 4 Die Hard flicks. That is one statement I found to be correct. It did not seem to lack much. A couple of deleted scenes definitely could have been put back in, like a fight with some thugs over guns in a trunk. Maybe they felt it diluted the tension and seemed more goofy than the rest of the movie. John Moore (remake of the Omen 2006) has a lot of haters apparently, but this movie is not the mess it is made out to be. I will say that it strained my patience only once, when McClane decides to crash through a guardrail on an overpass to drive across the tops of some vehicles below. And the scene also had the garnish of Lucy phoning his cell and his attempt to avoid telling her the trouble he is in. That is kind of a boldface Hollywooden moment that may enrage people so much that they are not won back. The equivalent moment occurs in the previous film Live Free of Die Hard when he jumps onto a supersonic jet and rides the top of it. That is the kind of insanity where I check out. The original Die Hard and even the first sequel had genuine tension and danger. Die Hard 2 pushed it with the eject-seat scene, but even that is a charming stretch and I was still on the edge of my seat and not ejecting. One other charge against Die Hard 5 is the most significant (and damning if it were true) that John McClane does not care about people in this movie. A clip below shows him stealing a vehicle with supposed disregard for the driver, but in context it breezes by. The person is not really harmed and the priority of moving forward is a little more clear. There is less emotion in this movie, but it is subtle and it is there. Some things still blow up real good and it is still better than a Michael Bay movie. Maybe it is the old principle of wide versus narrow acceptance; Frank Capra used to say that Lost Horizon’s full version played very well in the editing room and small screening room but was considered awful when shown to a full public audience. He figured that when individuals watch something there is a wider range of acceptance for it, even strange ranges of style and that the range becomes narrower the more people are sitting through it. He solved that by trimming out the first few reels of that movie, seeing it then accepted as a hit, and then for home video it was restored. Maybe watching a movie at home or on a portable DVD player on the subway it seems like a better movie and any anger I might feel about absurd stunt scenes is diffused. But ultimately the character of John McClane is best when he is the bug escaping the shoe of a gigantic villain, and less appealing if he starts to believe he is in a movie and therefore invulnerable.

debates: context

Lately I've had a few clashes online over the issue of Mel Gibson. I saw Edge of Darkness and I like it. The man makes good movies. Others are interested in promoting a negative image.

I find whatever the topic if I'm engaged in debate with someone the core of the debate is this: It is their goal to eliminate context and my goal to acknowledge context.

That seems to be a common element in any extended, significant fight with me.

I think some people are looking for something to simplify so it is purely something to from which the unconscious can react. People "love to hate" this or that, and wrap themselves in flags or embrace "umbrella" rules that have been extracted from specific incidents or cases. I have no interest in "umbrella" rules, except to reject them. And example would be: "So, the end justifies the means?" No, that's an umbrella someone is trying to hold over a specific case about which you do have an informed opinion and judgment.

Would you kill this person? Would you condone (blank)?

Yes.

So the end justifies the means?

No.

But. . .

One case at a time. No rule or law needs to be extracted from a particular example.
It might be necessary to keep a law in place that I can imagine breaking or circumventing. Subway passengers may need to be herded further along a platform while at the same time I need to find the most efficient way to get to the section of train which best lines up to the access point or escalator I anticipate at my stop. I would not extract an umbrella rule for everyone that says it is okay to skirt around a barrier. It may not be okay, and we don't want chaos, but this isn't about being a role model. It's about CONTEXT. Some will discard every element of context as self serving rationalization or "excuses," but in a novel for example that is exactly what allows us to accept the mini choices and compromises and accidents and failures and increments that deliver us to a strange and controversial turning point in question. For example:

Human beings love to raise someone up and then tear them down and will be relentless.

This principle has many examples, like Jesus Christ being tortured and killed by (or having this cheered on and/or tolerated by and ordered by) his own community. In Catholic Easter services, that community everyone present and all of us recite the taunts and rejections and the call for crucifixion. Wherever Jesus happened to be born in the world, people would have turned against him. It is understood that this is not a special case against Jews. The high priest Ciaphus has about as much in common with a modern rabbi as Judas has to Steven Spielberg. By the same token, I feel no special need to justify or defend white people who condoned slavery or any number of other injustices or atrocities through history. We barely have a connection to our ancestors let alone people who nominally share the same religion.

This is a tired example, but one made vivid and refreshing in the terrifying depiction by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ in 2004. I have no problem with this movie. Before it was even shot, there was an uproar discouraging even the decision to tell the story.

The inflammatory and loud position is: How dare anyone suggest the crucifixion was painful? How dare anyone suggest that Jews - any Jews - had culpability?
Do I have that right? Is that the outrage? Because the inverse is a fantasy land where a Roman thug is geared up to flog someone and does it gently, or someone is crucified nicely and painlessly, and where Jews are the only human beings in the world blessed with infallible ancestors. And if Jesus were in fact given special mercy, then why? Also, life gives all of us pain and fear and suffering and the story - true or not - has meaning and value to inspire if the person suffering manages to avoid hatred of his persecutors.

Mel chose to tell that story. He told it well and very persuasively.
Then he was persecuted even further and faced resentment over the financial success of The Passion. He still had offers to act in movies and turned down the excellent World Trade Center by Oliver Stone in order to direct Apocalypto. But by the time Apocalypto was in post production there was pressure on Disney to shelve it. Even though that story thread ended happily, at the time Gibson would have been up against the wall. There was enough stress that he took that deadly drink and fell off the wagon. In this case the wagon was traveling very fast on the highway and attracted police and he was drunk enough to mouth off. The police report was leaked to the internet, and because Mel allegedly babbled a few sentences that could be cribbed in memo books, he was firmly established as a sexist for calling one cop "Sugar Tits" and anti-Semitic for saying to the other cop, "Are you Jewish? Jews start all the wars of the world." Again, did I get that correct? Those two manifestos - the pro-sexist philosophy and the Nazi essay? Because this doesn't sound like someone who should be held up as if his fifty years of life are the sum of human hatred. He doesn't quite sound like he should be having beers with the President of Iran.

When David Geffin announced that he would not work with Gibson, one wonders if it was out of disgust with the above quoted example of "anti-Semitism" or because of Mel's alleged "homophobia." One thing for sure is that a lot of people celebrated the idea that Mr. Family Values and Mr. Christian had a scandal and could be promoted as an icon of hatred. As opposed to Icon Productions boss. The naive view accepts the third act good deed of the criminal as proof of his nature and prefer the third act screw up to be more true than a lifetime of compassion, precision and empathy that came before it. In a culture of sound bytes and youtube rants, a blip of human failing ends up being celebrated.

And are they giving him the nice crucifixion or the relentless one complete with taunts and ridicule? I know, even talking about it opens me up to hear "Poor Mel, his movie has to lag behind Avatar. Poor Mel, in its second week Edge of Darkness has made just under 30 million when its production budget was 80 million. Will it stay in theaters? At the time of writing, I don't know. But it's bigger than whether a movie star opens a film strongly. Even if Mel Gibson the man were a jerk after all, the alleged incident being talked about is not the real issue. It is "Look at me, look at me, I'm a God. I'M THE GOD HERE. Meeeee!" It's the average person trying to plug in to something, to play good guys and bad guys, but mostly to say if you lower the stock market value of "gay" then you must be attacked, or if you lower the stock market value of "Jew" then you must be destroyed. The Passion of the Christ attracted the hardcore Christian audience who voted Republican and were against gay marriage and served up a second term for George W. Bush. Those judgments were about on par with taking one's little children to an R-rated movie like The Passion of the Christ. Those things are connected, but they need not be rolled up together as if they are all the same wad of silly puddy. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine movie too, and well attended. The Passion of the Christ did not re-elect George W. Bush. But it's financial success might have been a shot of solidarity in the collective arm of Christians. That fact alone isn't necessarily a negative thing. But if it spilled over into political zeal, it certainly didn't hurt the right wing.

I wish Mel Gibson continued and increased success.

I appreciated The Passion of the Christ, having seen it opening day before the full brunt of the fuss and the debate really caught on. I continue to share it on DVD.

No Jew I know has ever participated in a crucifixion.

Apocalypto is a fine movie deserving of success, a bold vision of someone willing to go to the edge.

Jaguar Paw is a cool Mayan. We like him. Some other Mayans were brilliant in math, science and archetecture and human sacrifice.

I like Jesus, and/or the idea of Jesus that I admire.

I feel gays deserve equality and marriage rights and so on, even though as many of them as us can be irritating twerps and whining cry-babies.

It is unfortunate that George W. Bush got into the White House at all, let alone for two terms.

Michael Moore is vital and interesting. Kevin Smith is one of my favourites and it's a shame he slams Mel and the Passion. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie, but very chatty so maybe that's why he likes it.

I don't care what happened with intoxicated, drunk driving Mel and what might have been said or what slurs were slurred. It's for the best that he was at least pulled over and didn't kill anyone. He was properly driven to the station. At least the cops got that part of their job right. But since context is so often thrown out the window and people react for the sake of reacting and use whatever images and scenes and quotes to serve whatever hot-button they wish to promote it is unfortunate that the police report was not kept more secure. People don't have a "right to know" every detail; not all information is equal, nor is all handling and function of it.
Especially when some people disregard the whole drunk driving issue and scold the alcoholic for his ramblings which are merely the unconscious rages that have been repressed by the civilized business person. Never mind that alcoholics say they came to realize they are "powerless over alcohol" and their lives have become unmanageable, and the man takes a drink and the drink takes a drink then the drink takes the man. What folly to get in the face of the alcoholic telling him to time travel back to before he took the fatal drink and simply will himself not to take it.
And folly is a polite word for it.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts on context while watching a DVD.

Likes, Unlikes and Networking

Don't read this blog if your time is tight or you have to operate heavy machinery. Even though it touches on the core issue of divisiveness in human society being easy and connecting being unnecessarily complicated. I don’t like schmoosing and yet since 1984 I have been directing shorts and since 1988 writing a feature script per year along with anything else I’ve written – to mixed results – and I hear a lot about networking, usually showing up in a class of folks who all want to direct or a venue that requires voices raised above the music. I know enough about myself that I am not a screamer and my ideas are subtle enough that they will lose something at high volume. Sometimes you want people to lean in out of curiosity. I once attended an info meeting for Cine-Coup and there among the crowd sitting peacefully was producer and famous A.D. John Board whose posts I constantly see on Facebook and have posted comments on and liked. I had a moment where I realized I am actually hesitating about saying high to a Facebook friend. I walked up and said hi and what do you think and what are you working on – all generic questions and everything BUT the one thing I was too sensitive to ask. Like this is the wrong place and maybe I don’t know him well enough to ask how his cancer treatment is going with bee stings. Half an hour later, I notice he is surrounded by a huddle of other guys I didn’t recognize all having a serious connective conversation – after all, it’s no secret that he has been promoting his documentary about the bee sting experiment for ages and he is all about promoting homeopathic medicine. So I felt very face-palm about that very dot-nose bit of social awkwardness. The guy I knew John through had just lost a wife to cancer, and even my own late father was tough to talk to about cancer, but for me I think I choke when it comes to getting very personal in public. This doesn’t mean that I can’t discuss an ISSUE and stay on the ISSUE and have it be regardless of the reaction it cause. There is a great axiom, “Disregard the fruits of your actions.” I find that it applies when expressing anything in public. There are any number of nutty reasons why people might either ignore a comment or be incited by it. Provocative dress came up in a Facebook discussion recently, as to whether it provokes. If someone is looking to cull through Facebook numbers, I generally hope I make the cut and don’t get abandoned by someone. Even if I don’t notice for another year. I recently discovered that someone had not only dumped me but blocked me so that people in a discussion were reacting to interjections I could not see. I’d be lying if I said I am not curious to hear how I earned that distinction. I suspect that it was meeting this person back home and having less to say than a talkative mutual friend I was with. It’s a bit like the moment on Seinfeld where Jerry first steps out and leaves George to fill silence with Elaine. Except that I had been in a play with this actress, got along well with her, asked her out, and happened to meet her boyfriend who was involved with film and a cool person, then she went back home and we lost touch. But in person if I have been sitting watching a play or in transit and silent it is an effort to get back up to speed to converse. So maybe I seemed like an aloof dick. So that kind of thing I get. I can settle for guess work. Most of the time I can freely interject into any Facebook discussion or under any post that seems like something hasn’t yet been said about a topic. I expect the same on my own posts. People click like or maybe add an element of information that might be lacking or a quip. I find that there are a few Republicans and conservatives who post inexplicable support for things like Fox News but even then I stay on point if I post and it is about the subject and people should assume that my heart is in the right place. I have family members that are more conservative than myself, and I can clash on the issues and scratch my head over a stance, but still wish only the best. Surely I’m not alone in having friends or family with whom there is disagreement on a few items. One thing I’ve learned especially from looking at youtube and imdb discussions is that if I ever achieve a level of fame I will resolutely focus on that axiom of disregarding the fruits of your actions. As a FAN merely supporting an actor or a writer or a filmmaker, or pointing out a problem or a fact, I have had to fend off some serious vitriol. If you post on youtube, folks, be sure to do so under a different account than the one with which your own videos are uploaded or tediously disabled the ratings on each of your videos. There is really no accounting for taste, and if your main observation is that someone is a moron then it won’t matter how much time you invest reasoning with them. But we want to believe the best. Let’s look for reasons to write each other off. Bruce Willis and Kevin Smith have worked together on two movies, Kevin acting in Live Free or Die Hard and then directing Willis in Copout (original screenplay title “A Couple of Dicks”). Their experience on the latter has been discussed and written about by Smith and there is apparently an irreparable rift. I have all of Kevin Smith’s movies and listen to his podcasts, so if you are a hardcore Bruce Willis fan you can hate me for that. I have many Bruce Willis DVDs as well, so a Kevin fan could choose to hate me for that. Does the presence of one desecrate the land occupied by the other? I dunno. I have many Mel Brooks movies and Spielberg movies, but owning 21 Mel Gibson DVDs would cause some to call me “anti-Semitic” for failing to pitch them. Even though Kevin Pollak and company seem to be anti-Gibson [with side-kick Samm Levine being an Inglorious Basterd (sic) and making Nazi references], I still watch every episode of his Chatshow. He in turn has a good relationship with both Smith and Willis, takes no side, and believes neither would care if he did. People either come to the table with a chip on the shoulder and an axe to grind or they don’t. It has very little to do with what sets them off. Not that I or anyone seeks permission to have an opinion or make a judgement, but I’ll use the word permissive as a place-holder until something better comes along and I’ll say that in a permissive society or sphere we may not see a warning or a gauge of the over-abundance of lying and self-protective politeness. Once we understand that jealousy, judgement, and possessiveness are the current sins that are fashionable to acknowledge and your spouse says be careful on the computer not to open the file with the ex-spouse’s name on it because there are candid photos if you have a problem with that then the expectation might be to pretend you can take the shock and look at the pictures and then have to reign in whatever natural discomfort there would naturally be in seeing those images rather than trying to merely distance yourself from the fact that you followed someone who was replaceable and you may also be replaceable. That might be an extreme case of trying to be politically correct in one’s own home, and it might be a bubble that bursts eventually. There might be a growing detachment or suspicion or it might result in a regrettable violent reflex. Plenty of people go around thinking and projecting “I’m okay, I’m okay, I’m okay. . .” and then the dam crumbles and they are shocked to discover what they are capable of. It is unlikely that Loraina Bobbitt expected to cut off her husband’s penis until one time too many he went to sleep after being abusive. Never let the sun set on anger, they say. So a woman like timid-seeming Ms Bobbitt can be provoked to inexplicable violence, either in self-defence, as venting, or pre-emptive attack or in revenge but judged officially as a crime of passion or a moment of black-out, or temporary insanity. So is the same possible for men? In the 1970’s O.J. Simpson was appearing in movies like the Towering Inferno and Capricorn One and he was mentioned on Mork and Mindy as being the figure of worship in Exador’s new religion, an the eighties found him as an accident prone, unlucky Detective Nordberg in the Naked Gun Trilogy. In the Nineties he was the star of a long-running high-rated reality TV show called The Simspon Trial. Police explained to O.J. about DNA technology and reassured him that they would find out who killed his e-wife Nichole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, so O.J.’s reaction was to jump into a bronco for a long chase ready to commit suicide. This somehow didn’t come up until after the trial was over. Could a paragon of sportsmanship and a hero to many be capable of letting his pride and jealousy and the shock of losing anything in life when he is so used to winning snap and maybe black-out and become a horrible murdering thug? The Jury is actually in on that question, but it remains something difficult for people to process. Could he have anticipated this reaction? If he was mad at his ex, could he have gone for a walk like everyone else does? Maybe walking in Los Angeles is not common, so he might not have considered it. Not to seem glib, but if he can’t stand being around his ex he should have made a point to avoid her home and if he has visitation with his children he could hire someone or ask a fiend to pick them up. He did not have to see Ron Goldman driving his old vehicle or put himself in a position where he might see Ron driving his former old lady. I think if people expected the worst of their reactions there would be fewer eruptions of violence. If John Wayne Bobbit expected as a course of nature that frequent abuse of his wife would inevitably cause her to snap and turn the tables, both abuse and the retaliatory incident would have been avoided and it would have been better for the health of his penis. I would be instantly killed by casual female blog readers if I suggested there was anything Nicole could have done to avoid being murdered by O.J.. I don’t know what kind of regular interaction they had after the divorce. I have neglected as a citizen of Canada to read up on every American celebrity and their tragedies. I suspect that someone in O.J.’s position had not built up enough low points in life to cope with the ups and downs and losses that happen in negotiating a marriage and then the Heisman trophy winner and C-list movie participant could not process the rejection inherent in divorce and the vulnerability of his new intimate enemy possibly having enough dirt on him to fully transform his life’s achievements to shit and infamy. That became a self-fulfilling prophesy as he managed to invert his fame with his own horrible alleged actions. What if someone said to you I am free to go rub that celebrated athlete’s face in poop and mock him and make out with my girlfriend in front of him just because it is my right and because he has no legal recourse against me? Would you advise that this is a wise course, because after all in his shoes you know you have the capacity to take the abuse and you assume that he must be the same? And who knows whether Phil Hartman’s model-pretty wife Brynn was feeling like she wasn’t getting enough attention or energy out of the comedic genius who was known to be quiet in person? Maybe she didn’t need much encouragement to snap and shoot him. He likely did nothing to provoke it and she was known to be unstable on the inside as contrast with her pretty exterior. Dominique Dunn had finished shooting Poltergeist (remember her flipping the middle finger to construction workers) and had started shooting the first V Mini-series when her ex-boyfriend showed up and shot her. The same thing happened to the young star of Pam Dawber’s other hit sit-com My Sister Sam. How do people who were your friends or lovers get it into their heads that they can just go over and kill their object of rejection and obsession ? I don’t know. I suspect it is related to the capacity to compartmentalize some of our pain to survive. That might get mis-filed. And yes, I said “object.” I once had some know-it-all sanctimonious thought-police call me on that, “I’m pretty sure you just compared a person to an inanimate object” when I referred to people abandoning their bikes and being shocked when they go missing and expecting that the world will make sure nobody just TAKES what they want. Whatever else we are, ultimately we are all objects. Light falls on us a certain way, as does shadow, and we can dress for the wrong occasion. Remember the season 5 guest villain on Dexter, Jordan Chase the inspirational seminar guru with the catch phrase “Take it!” who turned out to be running an abduction, rape and torture club? Some people TAKE what they want, for whatever reason, for whatever this bike or that child or adult person represents to them. You may not steal, or deliberately hurt anyone, but you know enough to lock your bike and make sure it can’t be easily clipped, and also not to just leave it in a place where people can take their time picking at it while you hit a bar. The guy I argued with once on Facebook, and a woman who chimed in to insult me, don’t know how to set a separate standard for themselves and recognize that others may not be capable or interested in their concerns. It is true that the sales machine does not care a fig about the people it flatters and if an old fuddy-duddy father says to his daughter, “You’re going out LIKE THAT ??!!!” he is not a fascist nor the enemy of freedom and an anti-feminist nor is be a bad parent on the scale of the mother who brings her daughter to a Hollywood party to meet a famous powerful director and leave her alone with him for a “photo shoot” even if he is well known to have lost a pregnant spouse to a murderous cult and lost his family years before in the Holocaust and is likely a guy (talented and great though he may be) who has no good reason to be left alone with an under-aged girl who just wants to be famous. The over-protective parent might be annoying but they are not the enemy. Is it human nature to look for a fight? Is that the glitch embedded into the species? Whether it is the prehistoric man discovering he can use a bone to kill a rival or an AI system like HAL running a spaceship called Discovery that is shaped like a bone, something is off kilter and running things off course. There is a time to lower your head and shuffle away with the cowed, whipped white Eddie Murphy voice, “Okay.” There is also a time – in fact a great many more times – to stand ground and say no and with the obligatory “with all DUE respect” verbally kick somebody in the crotch. There are some cultures where you can punch your mates in the face and still enjoy a beer together. When you’ve been posting on discussion threads for years, contributing this or that perspective, and occasionally the dissenting view on someone’s posts for at least 5 years it is a little galling for a random piece of flotsam to call you a troll. And yet I don’t engage on a personality level and take the person down. I stick to the point. If someone wants to be abusive, I’d rather see them do it in the open where people can see that side of them. Augmenting an open back and forth with a private message that spews naked insult is childish. I’m not sure there is a consensus about where the line is drawn. Some people burn out their circuits without realize it, especially people who view themselves as progressive and aren’t used to losing an argument. And if they are used to it maybe the strategy (without getting into gender the way a certain stand-up comic did) is indeed to change the subject and make it a personal attack in the hopes of provoking a psychological implosion and try to wear you down or demonize. Expect false conceits to be at the core of it – you appear to have THIS position, which means deep down something is wrong with you. I think how can this argument work in a movie. How can it fit? How can it have consequence? A pair of co-workers are discussing Sinead O’Connor being cited as the influence of Miley Cyrus’ wrecking Ball video, O’Connor being badgered by media for a comment, and her deciding the comment can take the form of an article she may as well write herself and that article taking the form of an open letter, because it would indirectly reference her either way. All very logical. Then one of the office guys notices a female co-worker is in ear-shot, and dressed in skimpy attire that seems out of place in a geeky office. He decides to pipe up, “I think the O’Conner letter is slut-shaming, and it creepy me out. She seems to be saying women are responsible for being raped if they dress too provocatively.” “What is provocative?” the other guy asks. “What is being provoked?” “Nothing,” says kissy-face. “Here is some math for you – rapes caused by scanty dress equal zero, rapes caused by flirty or seductive behaviour equal zero, rapes caused by cock teases equal zero.” “That doesn’t sound like math,” quips the other guy. “It sounds like smug bumper sticker campaigning.” Kissy-face has a meltdown and yells incoherently at the other guy and knocks over a chair. He turns to the scantily clad young lady in the room and says it is quitting time and she can she can go home whenever she likes and nice dress and sorry about the discussion which males should not have a voice in anyway. He goes off on a tangent about feminism and accuses the other male of not being a feminist. The other male says, “Feminism is irrelevant in the western world. It’s an umbrella term. I don’t look down on out boss at head office just because she is female. Most people enjoyed 9 to 5 and still watch it and Working Girl (the workplace comedy with Melanie Griffith, not the one apparently about a hooker) and we pretty much agree with equal pay. I’m an ally on many of those kinds of reasonable things. That doesn’t mean I have to hold up the umbrella term feminist and ask myself whether each new issue or position is feminist in order for it to be right. My position on whether a rural doctor should be forced to expand her practice to include performing abortions even if she sees it as murder would not be considered a feminist position. My opinion as to whether two lesbians can get married and adopt would however be considered feminist. Having an umbrella term allows you to demonize me for not fitting all the arbitrary criteria of it. And the jury is still out as to whether dressing sexy attracts the attention of creeps and whether standing at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere is pressing your luck. I have sisters and I’ve heard them and their friends laugh proudly about who they will frustrate at the bar. I’m saying frustrate the wrong person and it is Russian roulette.” “I have control of myself. I’m not being caused to rape just because a woman is hot,” says the kissy-face p.c. guy. “We’re not talking about you or me, “ says the intelligent other guy. “We are speculating about a CRIMINAL. Almost every law exists because of the FUCK-UPS and the stupid and the morally weak. We can find out what sets a rapist off if we can stand to talk to him. But we will be too busy patting ourselves on the head for being superior beings. I have every right to compare a rapist to a hyena and say it’s a bad idea to get out of your vehicle and go pet one. Cee-Lo was accused of putting ecstasy into his ex-girlfriend’s drink, the master of comedy who I won’t name here – a beloved figure – was accused of using cold medication to knock out a woman so he could feel her up. We don’t know if any of that is true but enough people are open to the possibility because they know even a nice person’s head can split open and The Thing can spring out frothing at the mouth. You can be high on drugs or in self-righteous politically correct propaganda. “ “Ignore him, “ kissy-face says to the sexy looking female colleague. She waves goodbye and heads out the door. Both guys steal a glance at her ass. They don’t learn until an hour later when the police arrive that she was brutally raped in the parking lot by a clean-cut rape-culture night-clubber who remains at large. He may have chosen her because she was alone, or maybe because she was in a mini-skirt and stooped to pick up her car keys when she dropped them. If a medical professional ever discovered that his erection took a critical amount of blood from his brain and he had no control as his baser instincts took over, that professional would likely keep it to himself/herself rather than be demonized for a suggestion that does not calm and reassure people that everything they do is A-OK the way most of their input does – from advertisers and lobby groups trying to seduce them every waking hour. The reality is that we share the same dangers in our society and nobody wants a loved one to suffer the attacks that statistics assure us are inevitable. We end up seeing a video Facebook chooses not to take down, where a guy ostensibly angry at his wife for cheating chops her head off, we hear of girls getting splashed with acid in the face for saying no to a marriage proposal, we hear of date rapes and seduction seminars preaching which buttons to press to close the deal on sex. And some people still have the audacity to fucking lecture someone like me for saying so-called Slut Walk is a joke? Of course it is. The media, the music industry, everyone who decides what is cool for the young, the prison culture for example which has contributed some fashion statements, have no sense of consequence. It is over-stimulation, and more so now that we have more distractions. It is all wrapped up with a “you’re okay” rubber stamp. Someone’s dress may not be what causes a guy to snap. Paul Bernardo and Karla looked for “virgins” but that had more to do with age than attire. A “slutty” clad or dressed-down girl may be the virgin just feeding off of sexual tension as flattering, and the girl who has partied heavily, been to gang-bangs and used abortion as birth control more often than condoms may look like the quaint, quiet girl next door. Like the old Eddie Murphy routine about girls who, “raise hell and then move somewhere else and get shy.” But maybe there are safe behaviours and unsafe habits. Maybe there is a street-proofing and failure to street-proof even when people are not kids anymore that a stranger might steal or lure into a car. But in order to practice defensive living the way people know to practice defensive driving it might mean behaving AS IF we have some responsibility. For the way we are perceived and the way we provoke. I mean can you be provocative without provoking? Funny language, ours. By the same token, despite being civil I can be called a troll because I don’t march in lock-step with the popular misconception. When that happens I have to detach and accept that some people believe their own hype and the flattery that comes with being part of the target demographic. People who are still using terms like “Slut Walk” and “slut-shaming” will campaign to get rid of the word, but a) I don’t hear a lot of guys – especially adults – calling women slut. I remember Bill Murray calling Dustin Hoffman “you slut!” in Tootsie as one of the biggest laughs. I’m just as likely to use the antiquated word slattern. You know who does use the word – women, against each other. You know who polices who gets categorized as “that kind of girl” ? Girls. If a female is reputed to be easy, guys won’t launch into a lecture or insults. They’ll just form a line-up. Who sets the “double standard” for whether sexual history is a problem or a benefit? Again, a woman might choose a guy who is confident. If he got that way by getting lucky a lot, so be it. She likely will accept it. A man may or may not require confidence to find a woman attractive. It is not a deal breaker. He can wait for confidence to develop, just as a woman might be patient about the “bad boy” she has fallen for and she might believe she can reform him or tame him. So being “good” or “nice” is something a woman doesn’t demand of a guy to date him. So again a guy has absolutely no incentive to be a virgin other than having no game or no interest in the women available. So again even the term “double-standard” is kind of a joke. It projects on people a deliberate system or intention when there is no actual artificial structure there at all. It is lobby-group-think or magazine-think. It is the quality of thought that goes into devoting one’s University thesis paper to whether and why Batman and Robin are gay, Sherlock Holmes and Watson are gay, and how Anne of Green Gables is a lesbian. If it makes people feel good about themselves, then it is not a total waste of time. But it is also not scientific or logical or credible. There has been in this blog the habit of limiting gender to what is now called “binary” terms. The GBLTQ- and-sometimes-Y alphabet soup of human diversity should factor in and may even support the overall drift. The reason I think it’s great if a transsexual or transgender person wins a beauty contest is that it subverts the beauty contest and undermines it in the eyes of people who love that sort of thing. When the Huffington Post declared that Gloria Steinem has the last word on the Sinead-Cyrus debate and the issue of whether media exploits sexuality too much and youth and looks, she left it at Miss America offering a valuable financial reward and paying for a winner’s education so why not take advantage. But the funders of Miss America and other pageants could easily put their money into other enterprises if putting people through college is the ultimate goal. There are other accomplishments and fields of endeavor that could win someone a prize besides posing in a swimsuit and giving generic answers about world peace. Gloria doesn’t have the last word. There might not be a last word with any issue that has so many moving parts. I am only thankful that I was able to write this one on somebody else’s time. I will get to the bottom it eventually and crack the formula of humorless, arbitrary argument. This is the kind of crap taking up valuable real estate in my consciousness. If I wanted to complicate this I could factor in cultures where it is downright shocking to see bare skin or faces for that matter, and then remember the refrain from the days right after 9/11/2001, "If we stop living the way we do, the terrorists win." I don't know if rapists can easily be traded out for terrorists or vice versa in that idea. That would mean dress as provocatively as you like or the rapists win, and by extenion the patriarchy and puritanical system win and control you. But then while this catch-phrase was going around there was also a crack-down on airport security and a lot of unofficial profiling, certain individuals on the Most Wanted list, a couple of wars got going, and behavior was modified - there was even an additional umbrella over it all "the war on terror," against an abstraction. So if we buy into that old saw then a "war on rape" would have to partly be fought looking past what an individual or most individuals will do or would be capable of and it could be considered an ugly natural element. Then people can start going for walks with bomb-sniffing dogs ready to bite balls off. And maybe wearing something bulky or army fatigues. But pretending that nothing sets off or attracts unwanted attention is just crazy. It's not "blame the victim." It's acknowledge the related elements. Not a fight or a bickering match that can be won in a Facebook thread where it really is still about all-is-well and freedom and choice are the buzz words and not buzz-kill words.