In another article from Living the Romantic Comedy, they analyze the structure of Slumdog Millionaire. After watching the movie, I commented to my buddy about how beautifully the story was structured, and this blog encapsulates why it works so well. See it in it's original form here.
Structure, Structure, Structure
If movies are story, and they are, then screenplays are structure. -- William Goldman
You may have heard by now that this year's indie sleeper Slumdog Millionaire is being considered a dark horse Oscar contender for Best Picture. You might think such buzz is due to the exotic factor (Bollywood-color drama and romance in the slums of India!), that it's a Danny Boyle movie (Trainspotting, 28 Days), or that it's got that ridiculously gorgeous woman in it (Freida Pinto). All of these elements do contribute to what makes the movie such a wild and satisfying ride, but -- please don't throw things at the story analyst -- I think the movie works on account of its structure.
Structure9 Structure is the biggest old bugaboo in screenwriting circles. Reams have been written about this aspect of the craft, which is as misunderstood and misused as it's slavishly adhered to. I'm presently teaching a screenwriting class where the students are busily banging their heads against the specter of structure, as they work out the big beats of their plot en route to a viable outline of their movie. And they'd be the first to tell you that this is the opposite of fun.
Often the cry of the newbie screenwriter, knee-deep in such a painful process, is why?! Why is it so infernally important that one have the structure of a story locked in, before one starts to write actual scenes in earnest? Why not just... y'know, have fun with the thing? Write and make discoveries, figuring out what works and doesn't work on the fly?
Structure4 I'm all for all of that. But Slumdog answers that"why" in a way that no amount of theorizing could. It's a vivid demonstration of why sooner than later, deciding on a structure and committing to it is the best thing a screenwriter can do.
Here's what you learn in the opening of the movie (what follows is no spoiler, since far more of the plot has already been spilled in Slumdog's glowing reviews):
Eighteen-year-old Dev Patel has reached the last stage of India's Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? TV show. He's on the verge of hearing and answering the final question in front of millions of viewers. But Dev is merely a go-fer at a Mumbai telemarketing center, an uneducated "slumdog" who couldn't -- shouldn't -- be educated enough to have gotten this far. And so, suspected of cheating, he's imprisoned and interrogated, even tortured, by the local police. What Dev eventually explains is that each correct answer he's given on the show came from some fairly grim experience he had, growing up the hard way on the streets of Mumbai. Such as... And we're into our first flashback.
Structure_Flowchart How brilliant a construct? Let's see. As my writer-director friend Bob Dolman (Far and Away, How to Eat Fried Worms) puts it, any story is only as good as the predicament its protagonist is in. It's only when your character is between a powerful rock and an equally compelling hard place that an audience sits up and takes notice.
So: I'd like to tell you the story of what it's like to grow up dirt-poor in Mumbai. Here's where I was born, and here are my parents, and here's the kids I used to play with, and...
Bo-ring!
How about instead, I put you in the epicenter of perhaps the most important moment of my life -- when I'm poised on the brink of becoming a millionaire... or after coming all this way, losing the huge sum I've already won, and leaving as poor as I've always been?
Now you've got our attention.
And how about we add in the threat of my being strung up and having electrical wires attached to some sensitive body parts... and perhaps being locked in prison for the rest of my days, if I can't prove my innocence?
We're listening.
Now, wouldn't you like to know what I went through as a kid, to learn the answer to the first question I got right on this show? It was pretty awful.
Go on.
And how about, with each story-about-how-I-learned-an-answer, I tell you about my best friend and the girl I fell in love with, and how she came between us... and I spin that decades-spanning tale (it's got guns, betrayal and even the Taj Mahal in it) right up to the present moment, where friend and girl and I all hang in the balance of: what happens next?
Dude! Just tell us where's it playing and what time it goes on.
Slumdog-millionaire-sp
Since I'm not familiar with the source material, a novel called Q & A written by Vikas Swarup, I can't tell you how much of this concept is Swarup and how much is director Boyle and screenwriter Simon Beaudroy (who also wrote an involving little pic called The Full Monty). But I would wager that Swarup didn't start out, first and foremost, with a burning desire to tell a story about a quiz show.
Structure_img01 No, he probably had a passionate investment in a story about two best friends growing up on the streets of Mumbai. In fact, judging by some on-screen evidence, he might've been interested in telling a modern-day version of The Three Musketeers (with a little Oliver Twist thrown in). But my point is, how did that story end up riveting millions of butts in their seats?
Structure.
It helps that Boyle is a director of ceaseless energy and visual invention. But this time his considerable talents are brought to bear on a story that just -- keeps -- coming. Each flashback is a story in itself, with its own rising arc and tensions. And each time we come back to a present that's increasingly more meaningful and suspenseful.
Structure2005_e800 Plus you get an all-singing, all-dancing kickass Bollywood musical number.
As to the consummate why? of structure, here's my final answer: structure is the skeleton you hang your story on, and if you build it right, just about any image -- say, from a kid literally covered in outhouse manure to a haunted beauty caught alone in the monsoon rain -- will compel our attention.
Slumdog Millionaire even has a neat thematic subtext to play out, about how disparate, seemingly random events that felt like pure chaos when you lived them can actually sum up The Story of You. But it wouldn't have been such an indelibly memorable movie-to-see, if it wasn't told in such a canny, crafty manner.
Structure, structure, structure.
Showing posts with label film technique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film technique. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thomas Kinkade should leave filmmaking to the pros.
Poached directly from this Vanity Fair article, who obtained the exclusive on it. This is a memo circulate to the entire crew of The Christmas Cottage. For S and G, here it the trailer. I should caveat, I've never produced anything shot on 35mm with a dvd distribution by Lionsgate that starred multiple academy award nominated actors, but still...come on.
Thomas Kinkade's
The Christmas Cottage
The sixteen guidelines for creating the "The Thomas Kinkade Look".
1) Dodge corners or create darkening towards edge of image for "cozy" look. This may only apply to still imagery, but is useful where applicable.
2) Color key each scene to create mood, and color variation. When possible, utilize cooler tones to suggest somber moods, and warmer, more vibrant tones to suggest festive atmosphere. In general, create a color scheme for each scene that can be accentuated through filtering, DI treatments, or through lighting. Most of my paintings feature an overall cool color envelope, into which warm accents are applied.
3) Create classic compositions. Paintings generally utilize a theme and variation compositional motif. Heavy weighting of the image towards one side, with accented areas of interest balancing it on the other side. Allow the eye to wander into the scene through some entry point. Be aware of where the viewer is standing at all times. Utilize traditional eye levels for setting the shot -- that is, no high vantage points, off-kilter vantage points, or "worms eye view" vantage points. Generally focus on a standing adults viewpoint of the scene at hand.
4) Awareness of edges. Create an overall sense of soft edges, strive for a "Barry Lyndon" look. Star filters used sparingly, but an overall "gauzy" look preferable to hard edge realism.
5) Overall concept of light. Each scene should feature dramatic sources of soft light. Dappled light patches are always a positive, glowing windows, lightposts, and other romantic lighting touches will accentuate the overall effect of the theme of light.
6) Hidden details whenever possible, References to my children (from youngest to oldest as follows): Evie, Winsor, Chandler and Merritt. References to my anniversary date, the number 52, the number 82, and the number 5282 (for fun, notice how many times this appears in my major published works). Hidden N's throughout -- preferably thirty N's, commemorating one N for each year since the events happened.
7) Overall sense of stillness. Emphasize gentle camera moves, slow dissolves, and still camera shots. A sense of gradual pacing. Even quick cut-away shots can slightly dissolve.
8) Atmospheric effects. Whenever possible utilize sunset, sunrise, rainy days, mistiness -- any transitory effect of nature that bespeaks luminous coloration or a sense of softness.
9) A sense of space. My paintings feature both intimate spaces and dramatic deep space effects. We should strive for intimate scenes to be balanced by deeper establishing shots. (I know this particular one is self-evident, but I am reminded of it as I see the pacing of the depth of field in Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".)
10) Short focal length. In general, I love a focal plane that favors the center of interest, and allows mid-distance and distant areas to remain blurry. Recommend "stopping down" to shorten focal lengths.
11) Hidden spaces. My paintings always feature trails that dissolve into mysterious areas, patches of light that lead the eye around corners, pathways, open gates, etc. The more we can feature these devices to lead the eye into mysterious spaces, the better.
12) Surprise details. Suggest a few "inside references" that are unique to this production. Small details that I can mention in interviews that stimulate second or third viewings -- for example, a "teddy bear mascot" for the movie that appears occasionally in shots. This is a fun process to pursue, and most movies I'm aware of normally have hidden "inside references". In the realm of fine art we refer to this as "second reading, third reading, etc." A still image attracts the viewer with an overall impact, then reveals smaller details upon further study.
13) Mood is supreme. Every decision made as to the visual look of each shot should include the concept of mood. Music can accentuate this, use of edges can accentuate this, atmospheric effects accentuate this, etc.
14) The concept of beauty. I get rid of the "ugly parts" in my paintings. It would be nice to utilize this concept as much as possible. Favor shots that feature older buildings, ramshackle, careworn structures and vehicles, and a general sense of homespun simplicity and reliance on beautiful settings.
15) Nostalgia. My paintings routinely blend timeframes. This is not only okay, but tends to create a more timeless look. Vintage cars (30's, 40's, 50's, 60's etc) can be featured along with 70's era cars. Older buildings are favorable. Avoid anything that looks contemporary -- shopping centers, contemporary storefronts, etc. Also, I prefer to avoid anything that is shiny. Our vintage vehicles, though often times are cherished by their owners and kept spic-n-span should be "dirtied up" a bit for the shoot. Placerville was and is a somewhat shabby place, and most vehicles, people, etc bear traces of dust, sawdust, and the remnants of country living. There are many dirt roads, muddy lanes, etc., and in general the place has a tumbled down, well-worn look.
16) Most important concept of all -- THE CONCEPT OF LOVE. Perhaps we could make large posters that simply say "Love this movie" and post them about. I pour a lot of love into each painting, and sense that our crew has a genuine affection for this project. This starts with Michael Campus as a Director who feels great love towards this project, and should filter down through the ranks. Remember: "Every scene is the best scene."
The list above is not all-inclusive, but is a good starting point for internal dialogue. These guidelines are not listed in order of importance, but are dictated off the top of my head. After painting for nearly 40 years, I still wake up every morning daydreaming about new ways to make paintings. Creating a movie is a natural extension of the picture making process, and hopefully my catalog of visual paintings, along with my visual guidelines in this memo will provoke dialogue, experimentation, and a sense of over-arching visual purpose.
Thomas Kinkade's
The Christmas Cottage
The sixteen guidelines for creating the "The Thomas Kinkade Look".
1) Dodge corners or create darkening towards edge of image for "cozy" look. This may only apply to still imagery, but is useful where applicable.
2) Color key each scene to create mood, and color variation. When possible, utilize cooler tones to suggest somber moods, and warmer, more vibrant tones to suggest festive atmosphere. In general, create a color scheme for each scene that can be accentuated through filtering, DI treatments, or through lighting. Most of my paintings feature an overall cool color envelope, into which warm accents are applied.
3) Create classic compositions. Paintings generally utilize a theme and variation compositional motif. Heavy weighting of the image towards one side, with accented areas of interest balancing it on the other side. Allow the eye to wander into the scene through some entry point. Be aware of where the viewer is standing at all times. Utilize traditional eye levels for setting the shot -- that is, no high vantage points, off-kilter vantage points, or "worms eye view" vantage points. Generally focus on a standing adults viewpoint of the scene at hand.
4) Awareness of edges. Create an overall sense of soft edges, strive for a "Barry Lyndon" look. Star filters used sparingly, but an overall "gauzy" look preferable to hard edge realism.
5) Overall concept of light. Each scene should feature dramatic sources of soft light. Dappled light patches are always a positive, glowing windows, lightposts, and other romantic lighting touches will accentuate the overall effect of the theme of light.
6) Hidden details whenever possible, References to my children (from youngest to oldest as follows): Evie, Winsor, Chandler and Merritt. References to my anniversary date, the number 52, the number 82, and the number 5282 (for fun, notice how many times this appears in my major published works). Hidden N's throughout -- preferably thirty N's, commemorating one N for each year since the events happened.
7) Overall sense of stillness. Emphasize gentle camera moves, slow dissolves, and still camera shots. A sense of gradual pacing. Even quick cut-away shots can slightly dissolve.
8) Atmospheric effects. Whenever possible utilize sunset, sunrise, rainy days, mistiness -- any transitory effect of nature that bespeaks luminous coloration or a sense of softness.
9) A sense of space. My paintings feature both intimate spaces and dramatic deep space effects. We should strive for intimate scenes to be balanced by deeper establishing shots. (I know this particular one is self-evident, but I am reminded of it as I see the pacing of the depth of field in Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon".)
10) Short focal length. In general, I love a focal plane that favors the center of interest, and allows mid-distance and distant areas to remain blurry. Recommend "stopping down" to shorten focal lengths.
11) Hidden spaces. My paintings always feature trails that dissolve into mysterious areas, patches of light that lead the eye around corners, pathways, open gates, etc. The more we can feature these devices to lead the eye into mysterious spaces, the better.
12) Surprise details. Suggest a few "inside references" that are unique to this production. Small details that I can mention in interviews that stimulate second or third viewings -- for example, a "teddy bear mascot" for the movie that appears occasionally in shots. This is a fun process to pursue, and most movies I'm aware of normally have hidden "inside references". In the realm of fine art we refer to this as "second reading, third reading, etc." A still image attracts the viewer with an overall impact, then reveals smaller details upon further study.
13) Mood is supreme. Every decision made as to the visual look of each shot should include the concept of mood. Music can accentuate this, use of edges can accentuate this, atmospheric effects accentuate this, etc.
14) The concept of beauty. I get rid of the "ugly parts" in my paintings. It would be nice to utilize this concept as much as possible. Favor shots that feature older buildings, ramshackle, careworn structures and vehicles, and a general sense of homespun simplicity and reliance on beautiful settings.
15) Nostalgia. My paintings routinely blend timeframes. This is not only okay, but tends to create a more timeless look. Vintage cars (30's, 40's, 50's, 60's etc) can be featured along with 70's era cars. Older buildings are favorable. Avoid anything that looks contemporary -- shopping centers, contemporary storefronts, etc. Also, I prefer to avoid anything that is shiny. Our vintage vehicles, though often times are cherished by their owners and kept spic-n-span should be "dirtied up" a bit for the shoot. Placerville was and is a somewhat shabby place, and most vehicles, people, etc bear traces of dust, sawdust, and the remnants of country living. There are many dirt roads, muddy lanes, etc., and in general the place has a tumbled down, well-worn look.
16) Most important concept of all -- THE CONCEPT OF LOVE. Perhaps we could make large posters that simply say "Love this movie" and post them about. I pour a lot of love into each painting, and sense that our crew has a genuine affection for this project. This starts with Michael Campus as a Director who feels great love towards this project, and should filter down through the ranks. Remember: "Every scene is the best scene."
The list above is not all-inclusive, but is a good starting point for internal dialogue. These guidelines are not listed in order of importance, but are dictated off the top of my head. After painting for nearly 40 years, I still wake up every morning daydreaming about new ways to make paintings. Creating a movie is a natural extension of the picture making process, and hopefully my catalog of visual paintings, along with my visual guidelines in this memo will provoke dialogue, experimentation, and a sense of over-arching visual purpose.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Think of it as Film School...
...when you're starting your career. The beauty of film school is that it's an incubator for people to have terrible projects. And trust me, everyone's first project is a disaster. so is their second, third, and fourth.
It doesn't matter if you are an actor, a director, a cinematographer, or a writer, you will invariably SUCK when you start your career. If you are beginning in a career in entertainment, look in the mirror and tell yourself, "I SUCK".
Don't worry, there is an upside, because you are SUPPOSED to suck. The only way you become GOOD at something is to do it A LOT! and I mean A LOT A LOT. For example, every actor in LA is in some sort of acting workshop, even working actors go to classes to improve their craft. Because they know that it's a constant process to improve and that in every class they get just a little bit better.
When I first started working, I was on hundreds of projects feeling my way, and getting to a point where I thought it was time to direct. And my first three shorts were a disaster. This was a professional cinematographer, who had been on hundreds of shoots, and when I edited everything together, it was tragic. Luckily, I moved past it, and eventually became comfortable enough in my own skin to direct a feature and a couple TV shows.
So, why do I bring it up...because you should let yourself suck. Don't expect your first script to be perfect, or your first directing experience to be flawless. It's too lofty to think you should be great from the outset. Allow yourself to suck for a while. Now, if you've written ten scripts, or directed ten movies, and you're still terrible, that's another issue.
Since moving to LA, I've found that just as many people SAY they are something as actually are doing something. It's very easy to call yourself a writer because you've done a script, or a director for having directed one short film. However, the truth is that Actors act, ALL THE TIME. Writers write ALL THE TIME, directors direct ALL THE TIME, and producers produce ALL THE TIME. And THAT is how they get better.
Just remember this, STEVEN SPIELBERG'S first movie sucked. If you could get your hands on it, he would be embarrassed. There may be flashes of genius, but he worked, and worked, and worked at it before he even got a small break. I heard a statement a couple months ago that a new writer will gladly give their first script to anyone, while a professional writer will never show their first script to ANYONE. Once again, because even professional writers SUCK when they start out.
At UPC, I read a lot of scripts, and its pretty easy to see who the professional writers are and who are the people that don't have it yet. The professional writers have all the tricks to make their script pop, because they sucked for a while until they learned how to do things. It's not that the other writers aren't good, but there is an intangibility to the writing that stands out with a professional writer.
And that is what film school provides, the ability to suck without fear of reprisal, the be atrocious without fear of repercussions. To be given a grade, and a way to grow into a career, to develop your eye and your voice. So, when thinking of your career, think of it as film school. Let's say a writer writes five full features in film school. Well, you should give yourself at least five scripts to develop yourself as a writer, instead of sending out your first script as gold.
Remember, it's okay to SUCK. It's okay to need more work, because everyone does. But, it's important to know your inadequacies, and be working towards changing it. And as I said in a previous post, it could take between 5 and 10 years to be discovered in this business, and some people are never discovered. Everyone in this city has one thing in common, they used to SUCK, and now they are at some level of not SUCKING quite as much.
Remember, YOU SUCK, and that's okay.
It doesn't matter if you are an actor, a director, a cinematographer, or a writer, you will invariably SUCK when you start your career. If you are beginning in a career in entertainment, look in the mirror and tell yourself, "I SUCK".
Don't worry, there is an upside, because you are SUPPOSED to suck. The only way you become GOOD at something is to do it A LOT! and I mean A LOT A LOT. For example, every actor in LA is in some sort of acting workshop, even working actors go to classes to improve their craft. Because they know that it's a constant process to improve and that in every class they get just a little bit better.
When I first started working, I was on hundreds of projects feeling my way, and getting to a point where I thought it was time to direct. And my first three shorts were a disaster. This was a professional cinematographer, who had been on hundreds of shoots, and when I edited everything together, it was tragic. Luckily, I moved past it, and eventually became comfortable enough in my own skin to direct a feature and a couple TV shows.
So, why do I bring it up...because you should let yourself suck. Don't expect your first script to be perfect, or your first directing experience to be flawless. It's too lofty to think you should be great from the outset. Allow yourself to suck for a while. Now, if you've written ten scripts, or directed ten movies, and you're still terrible, that's another issue.
Since moving to LA, I've found that just as many people SAY they are something as actually are doing something. It's very easy to call yourself a writer because you've done a script, or a director for having directed one short film. However, the truth is that Actors act, ALL THE TIME. Writers write ALL THE TIME, directors direct ALL THE TIME, and producers produce ALL THE TIME. And THAT is how they get better.
Just remember this, STEVEN SPIELBERG'S first movie sucked. If you could get your hands on it, he would be embarrassed. There may be flashes of genius, but he worked, and worked, and worked at it before he even got a small break. I heard a statement a couple months ago that a new writer will gladly give their first script to anyone, while a professional writer will never show their first script to ANYONE. Once again, because even professional writers SUCK when they start out.
At UPC, I read a lot of scripts, and its pretty easy to see who the professional writers are and who are the people that don't have it yet. The professional writers have all the tricks to make their script pop, because they sucked for a while until they learned how to do things. It's not that the other writers aren't good, but there is an intangibility to the writing that stands out with a professional writer.
And that is what film school provides, the ability to suck without fear of reprisal, the be atrocious without fear of repercussions. To be given a grade, and a way to grow into a career, to develop your eye and your voice. So, when thinking of your career, think of it as film school. Let's say a writer writes five full features in film school. Well, you should give yourself at least five scripts to develop yourself as a writer, instead of sending out your first script as gold.
Remember, it's okay to SUCK. It's okay to need more work, because everyone does. But, it's important to know your inadequacies, and be working towards changing it. And as I said in a previous post, it could take between 5 and 10 years to be discovered in this business, and some people are never discovered. Everyone in this city has one thing in common, they used to SUCK, and now they are at some level of not SUCKING quite as much.
Remember, YOU SUCK, and that's okay.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Finding a writer...
Good afternoon Russell,
What would you suggest as a first approach for enlisting the services of a writer for a movie concept that I have? My story now resides on audio-tape and written notes with a creative writer in Nashville. She created the synopsis. But we need someone to take us to the next level.
There are three important questions that need to be asked when you are looking for a writer. They are:
1- Can the writer write?
2- Does he write for your genre?
3- Do you like the writer and feel he can finish the script you commission him to write?
1-This sounds obvious, but it is very important to make sure you get writing samples from the people you would want to write your script. Don't make a choice with your heart because you like someone. It's a long, arduous process to write a script.
2-While the writer may be an excellent writer, you like him, and their script is great for a specific genre, it doesn't mean that he can write for your genre. Most, if not all, successful writers are excellent at writing for their genre. Writers want to get put on a "list" or be type-cast into a genre. Basically, when someone asks for a list of the best writers for X genre, they're name will be on that list. If they are good at everything, they never get on any list...which means they never get paid.
An example, Quintin Tarrentino doesn't write romcoms, and Paul Guay doesn't write psychological horror. It's almost like having an engineering degree, you can be electrical, mechanical, nuclear, robotics, etc. While there are many similarities, there are enough differences that you wouldn't want a electrical engineer working on your nuclear reactor.
This is, of course, a hyperbole. But, if you want a horror writer, you should find a horror writer, not a romcom writer. Not only will they know the mechanics of the writing horror, but they will be more into writing the script, and most likely produce a better script. Now, you can sometimes find a really good writer who is looking to flip genres, and they can work out. However, I would recommend that if you look for someone like this, you make sure he has substantial credits first. If you go this way, you may be able to get a really good deal on a great writer.
It is important also to understand that IMDB credits don't mean anything with writing. There are writers who have written 20 scripts on assignment, and very successful, and may have 3 produced scripts.
3-While it's not a requirement to like the person who's gonna write your script, you want to be sure he's going to come out with YOUR vision, not his. Many writers can write excellent scripts on spec, but find it hard to write on commission because it's fulfilling someone else's vision. So, its important to make sure the person you are hiring can fulfill your vision, and incorporate the points that you want. Basically, that he is a collaborator.
Now, on the flip side, you DO NOT want to hire someone who is a doormat. The person you hire should have an opinion that can change the script for the better. A good writer will make your vision better than you thought it could.
What you DON'T want is someone who will take your ideas, tell you he'll follow them, and then turn out a whole different script. I call this the BILLY WALSH. This is opposed to the Joe Eszterhas, which will take your script, do what he wants, return something usable, but it will still be your idea.
Writing is usually roughly a 6 week process to first draft, then you will have to give notes, wait for a rewrite, give more notes, rewrite, notes, polish. So, if you don't have someone that can do the job, you could be wasting 6 months of time. Most writers will give you a price based on 2 re-writes and a polish. They will give you a date you can expect the draft, and deliver on that date. It is RARE to find someone who will allow you in on the process, showing you pages, etc. However, if you are working with a young writer I would demand in the contract to see pages on a regular basis to make sure the writer is fulfilling your vision, and writing well.
If you can find someone nice, it's always better not to work with ASSHOLES. They just add gray hairs. The only thing that adds grays faster is Incompetent Nice Guy Yes Men.
Good Luck.
What would you suggest as a first approach for enlisting the services of a writer for a movie concept that I have? My story now resides on audio-tape and written notes with a creative writer in Nashville. She created the synopsis. But we need someone to take us to the next level.
There are three important questions that need to be asked when you are looking for a writer. They are:
1- Can the writer write?
2- Does he write for your genre?
3- Do you like the writer and feel he can finish the script you commission him to write?
1-This sounds obvious, but it is very important to make sure you get writing samples from the people you would want to write your script. Don't make a choice with your heart because you like someone. It's a long, arduous process to write a script.
2-While the writer may be an excellent writer, you like him, and their script is great for a specific genre, it doesn't mean that he can write for your genre. Most, if not all, successful writers are excellent at writing for their genre. Writers want to get put on a "list" or be type-cast into a genre. Basically, when someone asks for a list of the best writers for X genre, they're name will be on that list. If they are good at everything, they never get on any list...which means they never get paid.
An example, Quintin Tarrentino doesn't write romcoms, and Paul Guay doesn't write psychological horror. It's almost like having an engineering degree, you can be electrical, mechanical, nuclear, robotics, etc. While there are many similarities, there are enough differences that you wouldn't want a electrical engineer working on your nuclear reactor.
This is, of course, a hyperbole. But, if you want a horror writer, you should find a horror writer, not a romcom writer. Not only will they know the mechanics of the writing horror, but they will be more into writing the script, and most likely produce a better script. Now, you can sometimes find a really good writer who is looking to flip genres, and they can work out. However, I would recommend that if you look for someone like this, you make sure he has substantial credits first. If you go this way, you may be able to get a really good deal on a great writer.
It is important also to understand that IMDB credits don't mean anything with writing. There are writers who have written 20 scripts on assignment, and very successful, and may have 3 produced scripts.
3-While it's not a requirement to like the person who's gonna write your script, you want to be sure he's going to come out with YOUR vision, not his. Many writers can write excellent scripts on spec, but find it hard to write on commission because it's fulfilling someone else's vision. So, its important to make sure the person you are hiring can fulfill your vision, and incorporate the points that you want. Basically, that he is a collaborator.
Now, on the flip side, you DO NOT want to hire someone who is a doormat. The person you hire should have an opinion that can change the script for the better. A good writer will make your vision better than you thought it could.
What you DON'T want is someone who will take your ideas, tell you he'll follow them, and then turn out a whole different script. I call this the BILLY WALSH. This is opposed to the Joe Eszterhas, which will take your script, do what he wants, return something usable, but it will still be your idea.
Writing is usually roughly a 6 week process to first draft, then you will have to give notes, wait for a rewrite, give more notes, rewrite, notes, polish. So, if you don't have someone that can do the job, you could be wasting 6 months of time. Most writers will give you a price based on 2 re-writes and a polish. They will give you a date you can expect the draft, and deliver on that date. It is RARE to find someone who will allow you in on the process, showing you pages, etc. However, if you are working with a young writer I would demand in the contract to see pages on a regular basis to make sure the writer is fulfilling your vision, and writing well.
If you can find someone nice, it's always better not to work with ASSHOLES. They just add gray hairs. The only thing that adds grays faster is Incompetent Nice Guy Yes Men.
Good Luck.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Making a movie...
...is incredibly frustrating because you have to rely on so many people. The dp has to light correctly, the actors have to act correctly, the camera op has to frame correctly, the producer has to produce correctly, and even the editor has to edit correctly.
Now, a lot of what that means is not only showing up and doing your job, but also doing it in a timely fashion. It is usually the problem that shows up in editing, because in low-budget films, you have to allow your editor and producers work on other projects in order to get a reasonable price. Either that or go with an inexperienced editor. Either way, what always ends up happening is a week becomes a month, and a month becomes a year. It's currently happening with my first feature, where we are 13 months out of principle photography. Now, granted, there were tons of problems, set-backs, and problems with all of the principles on the movie, but at the end of the day it's still 13 months out of principle.
Now, it wouldn't be that huge a problem, if we weren't having trouble lining up our next project, and if we didn't have a new project that is filming in October. So, we have to lock picture, do ADR, set sound/soundtrack, put up a website, and find a distributor.
It's definitely time to pull our stuff together and get this movie done.
Now, a lot of what that means is not only showing up and doing your job, but also doing it in a timely fashion. It is usually the problem that shows up in editing, because in low-budget films, you have to allow your editor and producers work on other projects in order to get a reasonable price. Either that or go with an inexperienced editor. Either way, what always ends up happening is a week becomes a month, and a month becomes a year. It's currently happening with my first feature, where we are 13 months out of principle photography. Now, granted, there were tons of problems, set-backs, and problems with all of the principles on the movie, but at the end of the day it's still 13 months out of principle.
Now, it wouldn't be that huge a problem, if we weren't having trouble lining up our next project, and if we didn't have a new project that is filming in October. So, we have to lock picture, do ADR, set sound/soundtrack, put up a website, and find a distributor.
It's definitely time to pull our stuff together and get this movie done.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bankable...
is a word that is usually thrown around to talk about actors, but it should be also be in your vocabulary to discuss your career. What makes you bankable as a writer/actor/producer/director/reader/pa, etc? Have you worked on formats ranging from mini-dv to 70mm? Have you been optioned or produced or had a feature distributed, either in home video or theatrically? The more things you can do to add to your resume, the better. For instance, here is a writer's importance chart.
Have an idea
Have a good idea
Have a great idea
Wrote a treatment
Wrote a good treatment
Wrote a great treatment
Wrote a script
Wrote a good script
Wrote a great script
Had a script optioned
Had a script optioned by a reputable producer
Had a script optioned by a studio
Had a script produced on mini-dv
Had a script produced on hd
Had a script produced on 16mm
Had a script produced on 35mm
Had a produced script distributed on home video
Had a produced script distributed in limited theatrical
Had a produced script distributed in wide theatrical
Have your produced, distributed script break even
Have your produced, distributed script make money
If you look at the above chart, you will see that the higher you go on the food chain, the more likely you are to MAKE MONEY for an agent, manager, producer, or business partner. The more MONEY you can make, the higher you are going to be on the radar of someone important. Look at shows like WIPEOUT. There is no way that an agent or manager actually enjoys that show, but they see the potential for the show to MAKE THEM MONEY, and that's all they care about...and for good reason.
Now, if you have a 35mm feature that had a wide theatrical release, please e-mail and we should have lunch. However, the point of this post is that any little thing you can do to make yourself more marketable will help with the process. Winning festivals is okay, but doesn't add to your BANKABILITY.
So, what does add to the marketability for a writer? Being part of a film that makes money is the number one way. The next way is to be commissioned to write a script. Once again, you will then be making them MONEY. After that, the further a project gets through the process, the more likely it is that it was a quality project and thus...BANKABLE. Potential clients want to know that other people have trusted you with the success of their project BEFORE they place their success in your hands.
So, the thing to take away from this...the reason an actor is BANKABLE is because he has proven that he can MAKE PEOPLE MONEY. So, make yourself bankable in your career and you will begin to make some headway. Even if it's your buddy's film, if you believe it will be produced, try it out. The way most writers make their living is through writing on assignment.
Have an idea
Have a good idea
Have a great idea
Wrote a treatment
Wrote a good treatment
Wrote a great treatment
Wrote a script
Wrote a good script
Wrote a great script
Had a script optioned
Had a script optioned by a reputable producer
Had a script optioned by a studio
Had a script produced on mini-dv
Had a script produced on hd
Had a script produced on 16mm
Had a script produced on 35mm
Had a produced script distributed on home video
Had a produced script distributed in limited theatrical
Had a produced script distributed in wide theatrical
Have your produced, distributed script break even
Have your produced, distributed script make money
If you look at the above chart, you will see that the higher you go on the food chain, the more likely you are to MAKE MONEY for an agent, manager, producer, or business partner. The more MONEY you can make, the higher you are going to be on the radar of someone important. Look at shows like WIPEOUT. There is no way that an agent or manager actually enjoys that show, but they see the potential for the show to MAKE THEM MONEY, and that's all they care about...and for good reason.
Now, if you have a 35mm feature that had a wide theatrical release, please e-mail and we should have lunch. However, the point of this post is that any little thing you can do to make yourself more marketable will help with the process. Winning festivals is okay, but doesn't add to your BANKABILITY.
So, what does add to the marketability for a writer? Being part of a film that makes money is the number one way. The next way is to be commissioned to write a script. Once again, you will then be making them MONEY. After that, the further a project gets through the process, the more likely it is that it was a quality project and thus...BANKABLE. Potential clients want to know that other people have trusted you with the success of their project BEFORE they place their success in your hands.
So, the thing to take away from this...the reason an actor is BANKABLE is because he has proven that he can MAKE PEOPLE MONEY. So, make yourself bankable in your career and you will begin to make some headway. Even if it's your buddy's film, if you believe it will be produced, try it out. The way most writers make their living is through writing on assignment.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
directing non-union television
I watched a TV show I directed last year, and ended up producing/writing the pilot episode. Now, usually you would get pay for each Writing, Directing, and Producing, you would be entitled to residuals, etc. But with a non-union show, you are expected to do a lot more. In fact, since it's your name at the end credits, people associate you with the good and bad of the end product.
See, I'm a writer, but I'm also a director, and a producer, so I can see things from a lot of angles. The thing I like best about writing, besides creating a world from scratch, is that after you write the script, you can defer to both the director and producer as having the responsibility for the end product. For every mind-numbing change, for every stupid plot hole, you can say, hey it's not me, it's the director. However, when you are directing, that's not the case. Even if you have the footage ripped from you and edited without any input from you, which is what happened to me, it is still your show. Even if you have only been in editing for 2 hours because that's all the producer can afford (which by the way I was never paid for), it's still your baby. Even if everyone on set compliments how you run the show, when a producer or editor screws up it's all on you.
Now, with this project it wasn't so bad. The editor had never edited for TV before, and the on set crew was lack-luster at best. However, I am not going to be ashamed when I show it to potential distributors and tell them this is a rough cut. But it brings up a point that I should mention...
See, I'm a writer, but I'm also a director, and a producer, so I can see things from a lot of angles. The thing I like best about writing, besides creating a world from scratch, is that after you write the script, you can defer to both the director and producer as having the responsibility for the end product. For every mind-numbing change, for every stupid plot hole, you can say, hey it's not me, it's the director. However, when you are directing, that's not the case. Even if you have the footage ripped from you and edited without any input from you, which is what happened to me, it is still your show. Even if you have only been in editing for 2 hours because that's all the producer can afford (which by the way I was never paid for), it's still your baby. Even if everyone on set compliments how you run the show, when a producer or editor screws up it's all on you.
Now, with this project it wasn't so bad. The editor had never edited for TV before, and the on set crew was lack-luster at best. However, I am not going to be ashamed when I show it to potential distributors and tell them this is a rough cut. But it brings up a point that I should mention...
- writing, directing, producing, or acting on assignment is just that...an assignment. You are not an auteur, unless you are very lucky. No, you are a person who is paid to do a job, do it well, and bring in your expertise. It's not being a writer/director on a high budget film.
- It's not your vision, it's their. Your job is to make their vision come to life, cut out the bad ideas, leave the good, and make it the best project it can be.
- You are meant to get in, on time, under budget, and still maintain the artistic integrity.
- The best you can ask for is a thanks. What you normally get is yelled at, complained to, undermined, and threatened.
So, I'm here...now what?
As the posting states, This is all about what to do when you're in La. Once again, I'm not an expert, having no job, but as part of my networking experience , I talk to a lot of people. And in those talks, I've met with a lot of people who have had success, failure, and more success, and these are the things I've gleaned.
--Successful people fail...a lot. Everyone I've talked to had a moment when they thought about changing professions. Lots of them had to work demeaning, terrible, awful jobs before they got even the smallest break. All of them had sleepless nights when the wondered why they came to LA.
--The key to success is to Write/Act/Direct and prepare so when the moment comes, you will be able to hand that killer reel, wonderful script, or amazing movie to the producer and they will want to make you a success.
--Don't ever stop networking. It doesn't matter if you're tired, weak, sick, or hurt, networking is the only way people will know you are there.
There are thousands of failures out there who are incredibly talented, and they get burned out and go back home. Every day, lots of people come into LA, hoping they will be the next big things. And the same days, lots of them come back from LA with their tail between their legs because they didn't get their break.
I emailed a Show Runner this morning. I asked him how he got into the business, etc. etc. bullshit. And he was gracious enough to email me back.
"Dear Russell,
The key to the television business is writing.
Spec scripts are the only doorway in.
If you haven't gotten a spec script into the producers of a show yet keep
plugging away at it. This is one of those deals where you have to constantly try, try again."
And there you have it...
--Successful people fail...a lot. Everyone I've talked to had a moment when they thought about changing professions. Lots of them had to work demeaning, terrible, awful jobs before they got even the smallest break. All of them had sleepless nights when the wondered why they came to LA.
--The key to success is to Write/Act/Direct and prepare so when the moment comes, you will be able to hand that killer reel, wonderful script, or amazing movie to the producer and they will want to make you a success.
--Don't ever stop networking. It doesn't matter if you're tired, weak, sick, or hurt, networking is the only way people will know you are there.
There are thousands of failures out there who are incredibly talented, and they get burned out and go back home. Every day, lots of people come into LA, hoping they will be the next big things. And the same days, lots of them come back from LA with their tail between their legs because they didn't get their break.
I emailed a Show Runner this morning. I asked him how he got into the business, etc. etc. bullshit. And he was gracious enough to email me back.
"Dear Russell,
The key to the television business is writing.
Spec scripts are the only doorway in.
If you haven't gotten a spec script into the producers of a show yet keep
plugging away at it. This is one of those deals where you have to constantly try, try again."
And there you have it...
Monday, January 7, 2008
Already Bored
It's not even a week into this thing and I'm already bored. Of course, that's not the point. The point is that I want to write more, get the free flow of ideas out, and hopefully think more clearly.
In film news today, I figured out how to make one of my characters in the new script I'm writing, Red Bicycle, more interesting. Unfortunately, I feel awful and the BCS game is on tonight so I'm going to take a nap, head over to Jon's, my buddy, and watch. There's nothing better than two undeserving teams playing each other to rekindle a love of football for an entire week.
I'm not really sure how long these things are supposed to be, but I feel like this isn't done near long enough. So, with that in mind, I'm just going to start free-writing in hopes of finding a good topic.
I feel like I want to talk about red bicycle, and my writing process. I call it the "Groove On It" Process. This, unlike most writers, means I'm not gonna do a lot of pre-writing. What I do is I just think about it in my spare time, until I have some sort of interesting framework in my head. Then, I start writing. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare, or even Killer Nerd, at this point. All it needs to do is have the characters and relative action right. If those things are wrong, then I go back, scrap that scene, and try again. When it feels right, then I move on. It's kind of weird and not what we are taught, but I find the more rules I know, the more I am able to successfully break them. And that is the lesson for the day. It's important, critically important, to know the rules, to study the need for certain things, to not think that you're idea is better than every idea to come before you, to not think that you can reinvent the wheel. The truth is, the wheel will never be re-invented, the most innovative people are the ones that take the wheel, and add radials to it, or make them bigger, better, stronger, faster.
These are the people that know the rules they are breaking, and bend them to their advantage. And that's a little bit of advice to everyone out there.
More coming on my tightness.
In film news today, I figured out how to make one of my characters in the new script I'm writing, Red Bicycle, more interesting. Unfortunately, I feel awful and the BCS game is on tonight so I'm going to take a nap, head over to Jon's, my buddy, and watch. There's nothing better than two undeserving teams playing each other to rekindle a love of football for an entire week.
I'm not really sure how long these things are supposed to be, but I feel like this isn't done near long enough. So, with that in mind, I'm just going to start free-writing in hopes of finding a good topic.
I feel like I want to talk about red bicycle, and my writing process. I call it the "Groove On It" Process. This, unlike most writers, means I'm not gonna do a lot of pre-writing. What I do is I just think about it in my spare time, until I have some sort of interesting framework in my head. Then, I start writing. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare, or even Killer Nerd, at this point. All it needs to do is have the characters and relative action right. If those things are wrong, then I go back, scrap that scene, and try again. When it feels right, then I move on. It's kind of weird and not what we are taught, but I find the more rules I know, the more I am able to successfully break them. And that is the lesson for the day. It's important, critically important, to know the rules, to study the need for certain things, to not think that you're idea is better than every idea to come before you, to not think that you can reinvent the wheel. The truth is, the wheel will never be re-invented, the most innovative people are the ones that take the wheel, and add radials to it, or make them bigger, better, stronger, faster.
These are the people that know the rules they are breaking, and bend them to their advantage. And that's a little bit of advice to everyone out there.
More coming on my tightness.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Steelers
As i mentioned, not everything in my blog is going to be film related. My goal is simply to create a blog a day about something in my life. If I can hone in on film 9 days out of ten I'll be happy, but if it's one day out of ten, I'll still reach my goal.
So, the Steelers, my Homeboys, played the Jaguars last night. And I was home, at my mother's house in VA. Right by her house there is a great sports bar with has about 30 70 inch hd tvs, and the steelers game was playing on ALL of them. I called up a few of my friends and we all met right after the Redskins game. Now, the skins lost, but that didn't stop the skin's faithful from chanting "hail to the redskins" about 30 times.
BAck to the game, it's a game the steelers were destined to lose. Home play-off game, Rothlisberger playing piss-poor, against the only team to beat them at home in the regular season. And, apparently the defense got that memo b/c the jags ran rough-shot over the steelers through the entire game, except inexplicably during the fourth quarter when the passed while up by 18. But, three picks in the first half by Big Ben was just too much to get up from, despite coming back and actually being up 29-28 after rallying from an 18 pt. deficit.
The major problem, however, was that for the league's best defense, the Jags had a 96 yd. td run, average an ungodly yac on the ground, and got a huge gain from a designed qb draw on 4th and 2 that won the game for Jacksonville.
It shows that the stats lie often, and as I predicted weeks ago, the Steelers D would crumble in the playoffs, much like the almost crumbles to not win their division. Any team that loses to Baltimore, 2nd string or not, does not deserve to win a playoff game.
In other news, the Skins lost. After 4 wins in a row including a 21-pt win in dallas, many were saying Sean Taylor (#21) was with the team. After their loss yesterday, my friend texted me this message:
"Redskins lose by 21. Must be a sign...That they actually suck"
Eat it 'skins.
To bring it around the film. Both stories had interesting story archs. In both games, the Seahawks/Jaguars got out to big leads. In both games, the Steelers/Redskins rallied to lead by 1 point. But, unlike a hollywood story, in the waning seconds, the rallies were not enough, stamped out by 2 pick 6's for Washington and a waning seconds field goal by Jacksonville/fumble by Big Ben.
If this were The Replacements or Varsity Blues, or a movie, in the final seconds, down by a score, a miraculous play or hook and ladder would have saved the day. But this ain't a movie, and you ain't Keanu Reeves. Hell, apparently you ain't even Boise State.
Coming up...More of me being tight.
So, the Steelers, my Homeboys, played the Jaguars last night. And I was home, at my mother's house in VA. Right by her house there is a great sports bar with has about 30 70 inch hd tvs, and the steelers game was playing on ALL of them. I called up a few of my friends and we all met right after the Redskins game. Now, the skins lost, but that didn't stop the skin's faithful from chanting "hail to the redskins" about 30 times.
BAck to the game, it's a game the steelers were destined to lose. Home play-off game, Rothlisberger playing piss-poor, against the only team to beat them at home in the regular season. And, apparently the defense got that memo b/c the jags ran rough-shot over the steelers through the entire game, except inexplicably during the fourth quarter when the passed while up by 18. But, three picks in the first half by Big Ben was just too much to get up from, despite coming back and actually being up 29-28 after rallying from an 18 pt. deficit.
The major problem, however, was that for the league's best defense, the Jags had a 96 yd. td run, average an ungodly yac on the ground, and got a huge gain from a designed qb draw on 4th and 2 that won the game for Jacksonville.
It shows that the stats lie often, and as I predicted weeks ago, the Steelers D would crumble in the playoffs, much like the almost crumbles to not win their division. Any team that loses to Baltimore, 2nd string or not, does not deserve to win a playoff game.
In other news, the Skins lost. After 4 wins in a row including a 21-pt win in dallas, many were saying Sean Taylor (#21) was with the team. After their loss yesterday, my friend texted me this message:
"Redskins lose by 21. Must be a sign...That they actually suck"
Eat it 'skins.
To bring it around the film. Both stories had interesting story archs. In both games, the Seahawks/Jaguars got out to big leads. In both games, the Steelers/Redskins rallied to lead by 1 point. But, unlike a hollywood story, in the waning seconds, the rallies were not enough, stamped out by 2 pick 6's for Washington and a waning seconds field goal by Jacksonville/fumble by Big Ben.
If this were The Replacements or Varsity Blues, or a movie, in the final seconds, down by a score, a miraculous play or hook and ladder would have saved the day. But this ain't a movie, and you ain't Keanu Reeves. Hell, apparently you ain't even Boise State.
Coming up...More of me being tight.
Friday, January 4, 2008
RePost: Perspective Changing Movies
This is a post from my short story musings blog from my last film.
With the movie on hiatus until august/when we find a useable deck, I decided to convert this into a sort of behind the scenes of my mind for the month. It will be back up to a production blog with other tidbits soon, don't worry.
But, I wanted to talk about independent film for a moment. A little background on me first. Surprisingly, I don't go to the movies much. Everyone will say the same thing to me when I tell them...don't you love movies? You make them. To them I say, yes I do love movies. I deeply, passionately, and unabashedly love movies. I love them enough to know when NOT to go to the movies. I know enough to know when NOT to get my heart broken.
In all the time I've studied film, I can usually tell a good movie from a bad one, in any genre. And, to be honest, there may be 4-5 movies a year that really spark my interest. I'm not one who only likes independent films or will only go watch blockbusters. Instead, I have to feel it. The soul of the film has to speak to me. If I really connect with a film, then I'll go. But, that so rarely happens.
Usually, I will find one film a year that I can really get behind. A film that "restores my faith in filmmaking". I'm always felt that while studio flicks are going for commercial appeal, independents are trying to be obtuse, gritty, and "nichey". But, there's usually one film a year that can break through all of that, and just be honest. A movie that doesn't need hollywood money or indy "cred" to tell a story. They just take an amazing concept and tell it better than anyone could at that moment in history.
Last year, that movie was "Little Miss Sunshine" for me. I was down pretty low after directing two short films I wasn't happy with. I was broke, broken, and depressed. My fiance couldn't pull me out of it, friends couldn't pull me out. I was simply miserable. I was seriously considering ditching film and going into something safe, like finance. But, "Little Miss Sunshine" turned me around and gave me the second wind.
This year, I just finished my first feature project. I've been rejected from two festivals from my short. I have yet to see one second of digitized footage, and I'm not quite sure what my next step is. Once again, I was in limbo. Then, I saw "Waitress" and it all turned around again.
I know its cliche to talk about "Waitress". Everyone loves it, raves about it, and talks about the tragedy. In will admit, I went into the movie with all of this information. I did not think it could possible meet the expectations others held for it. But, every since I heard about it the first time, I wanted to see it. I didn't even have to see a preview. I didn't even have to hear about Adrienne Shelley. I don't know what compelled me to see it. But, the moment I heard about it the first time, I knew I had to see it.
That visceral feeling is what I remember drew me to film in the first place. The feeling of not just wanting to see a movie, but needing to see it. It sort of tugs at your gut strings until you can't let up and you cave. It almost never happens to me. Sure, I would like to see a lot of movies that come out, but I don't usually have that gut reaction. In fact, I often go through the movie listing, hoping for one to tug at me, but hardly anything does.
What I loved most about it was the simplicity of the film. there were very few camera angles, but each was so meticulously crafted it looked amazing. The acting was subtle, understated, but still powerful. Even though each pie she made was innovative, the humble thought of the pie is so simple, and pure. The story was so relatable, even though I've never been through anything similar. It really grounded me.
With the movie on hiatus until august/when we find a useable deck, I decided to convert this into a sort of behind the scenes of my mind for the month. It will be back up to a production blog with other tidbits soon, don't worry.
But, I wanted to talk about independent film for a moment. A little background on me first. Surprisingly, I don't go to the movies much. Everyone will say the same thing to me when I tell them...don't you love movies? You make them. To them I say, yes I do love movies. I deeply, passionately, and unabashedly love movies. I love them enough to know when NOT to go to the movies. I know enough to know when NOT to get my heart broken.
In all the time I've studied film, I can usually tell a good movie from a bad one, in any genre. And, to be honest, there may be 4-5 movies a year that really spark my interest. I'm not one who only likes independent films or will only go watch blockbusters. Instead, I have to feel it. The soul of the film has to speak to me. If I really connect with a film, then I'll go. But, that so rarely happens.
Usually, I will find one film a year that I can really get behind. A film that "restores my faith in filmmaking". I'm always felt that while studio flicks are going for commercial appeal, independents are trying to be obtuse, gritty, and "nichey". But, there's usually one film a year that can break through all of that, and just be honest. A movie that doesn't need hollywood money or indy "cred" to tell a story. They just take an amazing concept and tell it better than anyone could at that moment in history.
Last year, that movie was "Little Miss Sunshine" for me. I was down pretty low after directing two short films I wasn't happy with. I was broke, broken, and depressed. My fiance couldn't pull me out of it, friends couldn't pull me out. I was simply miserable. I was seriously considering ditching film and going into something safe, like finance. But, "Little Miss Sunshine" turned me around and gave me the second wind.
This year, I just finished my first feature project. I've been rejected from two festivals from my short. I have yet to see one second of digitized footage, and I'm not quite sure what my next step is. Once again, I was in limbo. Then, I saw "Waitress" and it all turned around again.
I know its cliche to talk about "Waitress". Everyone loves it, raves about it, and talks about the tragedy. In will admit, I went into the movie with all of this information. I did not think it could possible meet the expectations others held for it. But, every since I heard about it the first time, I wanted to see it. I didn't even have to see a preview. I didn't even have to hear about Adrienne Shelley. I don't know what compelled me to see it. But, the moment I heard about it the first time, I knew I had to see it.
That visceral feeling is what I remember drew me to film in the first place. The feeling of not just wanting to see a movie, but needing to see it. It sort of tugs at your gut strings until you can't let up and you cave. It almost never happens to me. Sure, I would like to see a lot of movies that come out, but I don't usually have that gut reaction. In fact, I often go through the movie listing, hoping for one to tug at me, but hardly anything does.
What I loved most about it was the simplicity of the film. there were very few camera angles, but each was so meticulously crafted it looked amazing. The acting was subtle, understated, but still powerful. Even though each pie she made was innovative, the humble thought of the pie is so simple, and pure. The story was so relatable, even though I've never been through anything similar. It really grounded me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
