"Something" *Clicked* Today

Some things come naturally to some people. For me, it is writing. Writing a screenplay - even more so. I just "get it". I "get" the "blueprint" aspect, I "get" the mechanics of how people read over a white piece of paper when they really just want to have the thing "read". I "get" how to represent a scene/action/emotion on a page with black courier font text. I "get" how annoying quotation marks are.

I "get" actors. I get how I often over explain their character to them, that I might have too many ideas to try. I get that they want need as little as possible from me in way of explanation. I "get" it.

I don't get cinematography.

Oh, I have the knowledge. I can relay the knowledge. I can have a conversation. I somewhat understand the math of electricity and bulbs. I know key/fill/back/kicker. I know you're supposed to paint with the light. But none of it ever added up. I didn't get lenses, I mean I know depth of field and composition, but when we start talking millimeters... uh-uh. I can't do it. Can not do it.

Anamorphic, widescreen, ratios... I know these terms, I still don't get why a TV will sometimes squish a widescreen recording and still cut off sides in a letterboxed dvd.

Until today.

I guess working around the lights recently, solving some problems here and there, talking bulbs and wattage and then immediately cutting the footage and seeing the results - a technical education if you will - made it click with me.

I get it.

I think I just stepped up my game folks.

For years, left alone in a world devoid of cinephilic friends and no money to buy those with a cinematographic green thumb, I was honestly terrified to experiment, knowing I had no chance of looking professional without lighting. If I couldn't get a DP on board on the day, I had no other choice but to shut a project down.

Then I thought, "If I just had the $500 it took to buy a light kit, then I could take my time and experiment on my own. Then I'd get it. Well I never had the practical need for lights. So I couldn't possibly spend the money.

So I cut my teeth on wedding and highlight videos. I experimented with framing and editing. With distance and movement. The only real thing I learned about lighting from that was what an ND filter did. And that stepped up my game. The ability to use real Cannon lenses on the XL1 was the first step in an evolutionary process. I learned the correlation between the clouds and F-stops and Frame Rates. Now I can do it in my head.

Then I suddenly needed a steady cam. I obviously can't afford that but there are so many fun looking tutorials online to build one for $10, I had to try.

It mildy works. But what I really gained was a true DIY attitude. What I previously thought was for amateurs, I now realize can actually be for a realists looking to keep working. I often run from "DIY" because my nose is in the air. Or rather, a chip is on my shoulder. I have a deep need to only make professional pieces, it's a problem that has kept me from directing more projects because of money concerns. Being in Oklahoma, people throw around terms like "barebones" and "Do It Yourself" and the dreaded "Independent Filmmaker" phrasing that is supposed to be some sort of excuse for shoddy work! And I'm too good for that!...

(okay... easy... I'm working this out guys - I'm admitting I may have a filmsnob problem - okay? I'm working it out.)

I looked at these lights I used on Player's Court. They were expensive. They were amazing for my project because we were just experimenting with shooting style and character work. The lights helped be something more than that - closer to a visually finished project - so it could now be used to be shown rather than just good pre-production. Kent (the DP) and I talked so much about bulbs that in cutting I now UNDERSTAND the relation between distance and watts and direction.

And I saw that the true value of the professional lighting kits were not the lights at all. It was the "brushes". The barn doors, the diffusion, the things that truly allow you to "paint with light" - or maybe now more accurately, "paint with shadow". And then not just those features - but the system. Want to splash light here? move the barndoor in. want to not be so bright? drop in another scrim.

I had a moment when I REALLY needed a "softbox". Then I doubled the diffusion over and it worked fine. I was proud of myself for that. So I admired my work and recognized for the first time that I understood what I did. *I slap my forehead*
But not just that, I was looking at a clothespin holding wax paper! That's not official film gear! In fact, the fill light was one of those $5 clamp lights from Walmart, except it was black instead of silver and had a really expensive bulb in it.

Then the $300 600 watt light started having problems after the $150 300 watt light's fuse blew.

Then I remembered a number from my last trip to Walmart buying a screw to fit through a pvc pipe cap and in to my camera for the steady-cam. I did some math.

$10.00

500 watts.

Worklight.

Wal-Mart.


INT. WALMART -- DAY
Across the aisle from potential steady cam pieces in Wally-World - a pile of work lights. A variety of builds. Some built to hang, some with nifty stands and wires to keep your fingers out of the burn zone.

ANGLE ON YELLOW SHELF TAG
$30 will get me 2 lights and a six-foot tripod stand that detaches into this crazy handheld device... Options.

It dawns on me that video is not film. There's a problem with too much light when shooting with video, rather than the way my training with film taught me to see "painting" - a major difficulty with darkness. That means that if I could get a wide enough flashlight - I could probably light a movie with flashlights! Light kits are built from the knowledge of film - you need light. So do I need that if I'm shooting video where light is the problem and the paint is shadow?

TWO 500 watt lights I can point anywhere. PLENTY of light. Now on to the brushes.

Brushes:
Direction - where the light is not.
Diffusion - softening how much shadow falls from the light against objects.
Reflection - changing the quality of the light's direction.
Color.

Solution:
Direction - I'll take ideas for barndoor solutions, but the worklights have lips on them, so thin black metal plates clamped on shouldn't be a problem. You can also use anything to block light.
Diffusion - needed an easy way to carry two lights and a tripod and extension cords. I bought a plastic tub. A white, non-see-through, plastic tub. If I set it in front of the light, the light will not pass directly through. It will be defused. Add layers of wax paper to taste(keeping in mind the potential of melting plastic though - 500watts is some fast heat).
Reflection - line that tub with foil, point the light the opposite way, and shine it into a box of foil. Line it with silk and get it close enough - you have an umbrella.
Color - line tub with color gel.

WOW.

I don't have to pay to experiment any more. I can shoot a short as the inspiration comes to me and still look professional! It can still LOOK like a movie!

I spent $40 on a light kit.

*Click*


*Click*

BOOM!

Slow Motion in Final Cut Pro 7

Here's a quick tutorial on how to do slow motion, reverse frames, or even fast motion.



And why rehash everything when this tutorial explains in greater detail all the bells and whistles and effects you can do with "Change Speed" so well. It's not video, but now you can intake at your own speed. Check this one out:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/fcp_7_speed_tools_martin.html

Film Criticism

Being brief, there's a lot to explore here later:

One of the films I saw at Dead Center was “For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism” . The following panel was about the state of film criticism as well.

The film turned into a film snob rant on blogging and the internet and how it is killing film criticism. It was easy to feel inadequate as I quickly flashed to my favorable review of Iron Man 2 and even claimed Pepper Potts to be one of the best written female roles in cinema. Yes, I said that. I'll back it up in a later blog.

I also thought about how I do not invoke the entire wealth of film knowledge in to my reviews. And I felt like the group of girls in the film history class that all said they liked Transformers 2.

But here is what I've processed so far. I do know film. I could easily reference any French film with popular culture and tell you why any film didn't work perfectly. I can also tell you the real reason why no one cares to see French films - it doesn't have anything to do with reading the screen - it's that French films have recently failed to expand on and evolve with film grammar. They still largely rely on the fact that they are French.

(I've digressed - imagine that). Anyway,
the reason I don't pull on my vast knowledge of cinema, and quite possibly the reason why critics are losing jobs... is because there is a very clear difference in a review and in film criticism!


Explain to me how you can really provide a powerful discussion and criticism of a film without giving away major plotpoints. And in doing so, changing how the movie is seen. And in doing so, changing the experience and possibly breaking the connections and contexts you created. And then what benefit did you provide a reader?

On top of that, it's commercialism, not the wide variety of morons on the web, that have given way to an attitude of watching only what is new. And that's just the way it is. Too many films are out there now and people want to see what's new.

So to "review" a film and invoke a context (what the director of the documentary claimed is what good critics give their review) that is not accessible by the audience you are writing for is simply the critic showing you how smart they are... intellectual masturbation. And I'm just saying, you are probably going to lose your job writing reviews for the paper.

When a critic pulls an attitude that downs "blogging" and other mass pop mediums and plays it off as silly, I have to take an issue as an Educational Technologist. And when they act as if they are better than mass culture because they enjoy French films and won't review new films because it's pop culture and "I am just going to hate them all anyway", it's hard to feel sorry for them for losing their job.

I enjoyed the film, I loved the panel discussion (as much as I got to see), and the director did say he wasn't anti-web or ageist, and that if he could re-edit he would change how that attitude was portrayed. But you couldn't help but feel the animosity directed toward anyone without a cane or nose in the air.

And so... I've regrettably defended pop culture... I need to take a break... I don't feel so well...

I walked into that film with an attitude that I was know-more-than-you auteur and walked out re-evaluating myself. And feeling the need to defend my reviews. More on this self-made dilemma to come.

Mark one up for DeadCenter Film Festival for making me think.

Iron Man 2 Review

Go see this in theaters. If you are able, go see this movie in IMAX (not the "IMAX Experience" - theater conversion thing - unless you're a sound connoisseur with money to spend, it's NOT a 7 story IMAX screen).

It's too much fun to miss.

Iron Man 2 is what a sequel should be. There's bigger action set pieces, but Favreau lets all that be motivated. There is an honesty to this movie that Michael Bay could really take a lesson from. Favreau's treatment of big action and sex appeal all comes from the characters, it hardly even comes from the plot. And that's what makes the action better.

RDJ is, once again, fantastic. Wait for a small moment Stark spends in the company of his father's memory, and you'll buy anything Stark will deal with or is capable of.

One of my only issues with the first movie was the writing for Pepper Potts. She was, at first, written as a strong woman who took nothing from anyone and did her job well. She later turned into one dimensional damsel in distress, running with flailing arms from the badguy. I thought Gweneth saved the movie by playing it with such great blankness to the script that she nearly pulled it off.

In this film I came to better understand Pepper Potts. And it has saved the character in the first film for me. Paltrow is given so much more to work with but her character stays very true to what my original issue was.

And honestly, I admit the "issue" with the character a bit sheepishly. Apparently I wanted a one dimensional character and thought Paltrow was infusing life and connection between two separate flat characters. After the second installment, I'm won over by Pepper. She is one of the better written women in cinema (I say it unapologetically). Women are traditionally treated to one dimension in movies, and Pepper Potts is far from it. And Paltrow gives us the perfect portrayal. She is a woman. She doesn't want physical fighting. She doesn't have training or the desire to get in to combat. But she DOES take care of business. And she isn't afraid of anyone when it comes to matching wits. Pepper Potts is essentially a normal, innocent human being in a world filled to the brim with one or the other - super power people or fleeing bystanders.

Even though Don Cheadle opens us back to Lt. Rhodes with a line meant as much for the audience as for Stark, "I'm here, let's get used to it, let's move on," you can't help but draw comparisons of Cheadle and his former embodiment, Terrance Howard.

I liked Terrance Howard better. Don't get me wrong, I love everything Cheadle does, and he was very good here. It's just that Howard has this constant sense of discovery and humility all over his face, but then he is unbelievably cool and in control at the same time. Howard's presence was the perfect play off of Downey, Jr.

But what are you gonna do? You got to hand it to Marvel for knowing their budget, giving their terms, and not getting bloated over their success with one film (like so many others, including a little Batman and DC debacle we still haven't recovered from). They're an exciting studio to watch because they are turning a lot of things in the business on its head.

Ultimately Cheadle is the only possible replacement, and he does well. I wonder if most of what I miss is just from the inescapable comparison, and not a real judgement of chemistry.

But, see the movie... Now.

I'm Over It... OK, I'm Over Myself

So... I think I owe The Dead Center Film Festival an apology letter.

Let me first say, that the intent of this blog has a little bit to do with venting the fears and frustrations and triumphs of an independent film maker. And with that sense, even while I'm having a nervous breakdown over the first cut of my film, or when I'm dropping into a depression over getting a rejection letter, or when I'm writing nonsense stream of consciousness while I edit, it's existentialism.

I know fully well the world is not ending. I know fully well it looks ridiculous and might not be perceived with the full intent of my tongue-in-cheek attitude, but never-the-less, I feel I must vent. And not just for myself, but also because: I hope this to be a journal of fears, frustrations, triumphs, bombs, and insight from me to the reader - those of you who might care what goes on in an independent filmmakers head. So maybe you'll know you aren't alone, or maybe you'll know you are in better shape, or maybe you just want to take the ride with me for the fun and interest.

So... Without Further Ado.

Dear DeadCenter Film Festival,

I'm sorry I expected you to accept my half-finished movie for your film festival. I apologize that I thought I was a shoe-in for the fest because I have a really good concept and vision and because my production phase was so awesome, complete with great crew and cast. I expected less of your film festival and for that, I apologize. You will see a different film next year... and it will be one of the few entertaining selectees from the hundreds of crappy and mediocre and even good movies you reject. Can't wait to spend the weekend with you, DeadCenter.

Sincerely,

Jacob

Extract: Not Quite Office Space

I finally got to see Extract.


Bottom line: this is a funny movie. *This is an enjoyable rental. *Ben Affleck is the greatest supporting actor of our generation. *Jason Bateman continues to impress by being absolutely brilliant as the everyman with the slightest of movements around his eyes and in his choices. *Mike Judge writes and directs strong and full characters once again.




**Something didn't quite work.


What?... I'm not exactly sure.


It could have been the expectations of Mike Judge as he continuously walks in his own created shadow of the highly quotable and BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME... Office Space. That will sometimes do it.


I think it might have something to do with the fact that the plot is not nearly as innocent. It plays like the continuation of Office Space. The world is set up well, the characters are hilarious and consistently dragging each other into situations over their head, but it's dealing with cons, adultery, drugs, and some female characters that just aren't likable. Ultimately, this ruins the "escape the mundane" aspect that Office Space played off of, which in turn takes away the existential comedy of the situation.


It's hard to be existential when the situation is as terrible as the characters perceive.


Extract probably shouldn't be compared to Office Space, but Judge makes it really hard not to. There are parallel characters and plot elements, and the fact that it's dealing with the work environment like no other films really tend to do - makes the comparison inescapable. And there, is possibly where the movie ultimately fails. Fail is too strong of a word. Rephrase:


There is where the film ultimately shows why it didn't succeed in theaters or on DVD the way Office Space did, or the way the studios probably thought it might.


Rent with no expectations... and when the kids are in bed = have a good time.

Help. I've fallen and I can't get up.

Artists are quite often known for being manic depressives. I've hit the downswing here.

My short film "Do You Want to Go Out?" was rejected from DeadCenter. I even entered in the Oklahoma category. The logic being that because I knew what sound was, because I actually used some professional equipment, that I'd be a shoe-in. And I wasn't.

It could be because I turned in a half finished product. One that was too long in the beginning and too sloppy in the end. A version with no soundtrack, uneven color, easily corrected mistakes left in, and well... let's face it folks... bad  sound. All those things I can tell myself, but I really don't know what they thought. It sucks to be rejected.

Especially after my last short some 4 years ago was dreadfully low quality. Especially to know that unless you are in a film festival you won't get sincere criticism, you just get a lot of "Oh that was good," junk. When it's an objective crowd, they really are judging your film - and it's gut-wrenching to hear, "not good enough" - especially when you're competing with a limited crowd. It's devastating to not be able to produce content but once every two years and know that you didn't live up to the standard that was created from successes in college. 


It's like I'm a brilliant director stuck inside the body of a lame producer. My producer won't let me do work, my producer won't line things up to keep me going.

And to know, that I chose a path that meant I had to be good every time- and often -or I would be doomed to doubleA ball with never a shot at The Show. I'm that pitcher who's mom made him go to college instead of taking the draft and he ended up throwing out his arm.

More than anything, I just needed a win.

Not sure why I looked to a film festival for the win in the first place. But sometimes you need confirmation that you belong. Even when you've had that moment 20x before. Even when you've stood next to giants.

Maybe my film WAS rejected because it's not good as a half-done, but that continues to be my excuse. Limited resources/access/time. I keep tweaking "that", I keep waiting to get "this" right. Others do it, they do it all, they get work done. I don't get it, but,


It's like I'm a brilliant producer with a whiny prima donna director stuck inside. The auerture won't shut up and make the movie, he needs his latte to be correct, he needs his space to be clear.

Wake up Call: The Business Plan

<---A helpful book for starting out

Last week I took a second run at my business plan for film. Every time I dig in, I get so excited about the future of this business. When I walk away, all the crap of life and my artistic mind wants to throw more into it, tell me how hard all of it is, and tries to overwhelm me. It often succeeds. It is why I'm only on the second draft of a business plan investors need to know about.

Too many of us treat ourselves as "filmmakers". Well, I'm sorry, but unless you work at Kodak, or Fuji, you are not a film maker. I am not a film maker. We all need to get it through our heads so we can move on and stop expecting someone to give us an aurteur contract because we can dissect Francis Ford Coppola films.

You are hardly an artist. Just because you know the art side, just because you make a movie and inject something Scorcesse or Lynch has done into your story, just because you can break down exactly why a Michael Bay movie is awful (and I'm talking about myself here too) doesn't mean you are "above" the business nature of your medium. This is a wake-up call, Jake.

The moment you apply a story to your art, you have become an entertainer. And entertainment is a business, there is no way around it. Your market might be stuck up film snobs like yourself, your story might be for pure art reasons. But any time you want to hold an audience captive, any time you would even like the idea of them paying for it, you are a business person.

Even David Lynch is subject to budgets, schedules, marketing, audience turnout, and ROI (that's Return On Investment for you ingenious aurteurs out there).

Here's what I've learned:

• Your art will not go away. You have a unique vision - inherently - no one else sees how you do. Therefore your artistic nature is not a trick, if you don't think about it, if you set aside thinking about your "art", it will not make you worse because you aren't thinking about it
• So start learning the business. Stop watching more movies for a month, and research on how the movie got made. You will only lose time by putting off stepping towards business.
• MOVE FORWARD, or, as I will condition myself to think = MFF. I will let you fill in the blanks there, but I had to use the middle one to get some emphasis on FORWARD. My first draft happened months ago because I finally sat down and said "I'm doing this". Because of that moment on that day, I'm done with my second draft today. But only because I did that first one months ago.

Finally: Rely on other people. Being an artist is a lonely gig, it comes with the territory. But you aren't an artist until you start creating art, remember? And you can't create art until you do some business.

• Which makes you a business person right now. Your business is failing. Because business is not a lonely gig. Understand your business and then get people excited about helping, people who are business people - not other aurteurs like you! How's that supposed to work? You will need marketing people, producer people, and people who know people. Start collecting business cards.
• Like a movie without a screenplay - you don't have a viable business without a business plan. So start writing the business plan. All those people you are collecting cards from have no idea what making a movie is, but if you can relay what making a movie is in terms they already know... How exciting will that be to them to understand the magic behind a movie suddenly?

That's all. Stay tuned for more on HOW to write a business plan. I'm no expert, but I sure have done exhaustive research. So I'll relay it to you. Not to mention, if you don't know anything about Oklahoma Tax credits combined with the federal government's incentive for investing in film, you are missing out. 

There is no other business that can guarantee 70% of an investment will not be lost. Not to mention, at the same time providing the potential of the return to be so massive (how much did the $10G film Paranormal Activity make at the box office?)

Oh... and MFF. Let's go.     (that's "flip"... by the way... like a, uh, front flip, you know... flip)

Blogging While Editing 4 - DYWTGO?

Really didn't want to edit from my office, but a 24" screen beats a 13" any day. I don't know if I can stick around here for very long. Last time I worked in my office late, I got locked in the parking lot on campus. Luckily someone left one of the gates' padlocks off. But I found that after quite a bit of panic.

Working on the exterior apartment sequence. It's really important to get each beat in the scene right. We didn't get a take with every single beat right. But each take has at least one beat that is just golden. I wonder if it's just me as an editor, though. I didn't see it that way when we shot it. I tend to look at each beat as its own moment when I edit. I think that's why my highlights are topnotch. But when it comes to the scenes themselves, I really put so much time into each moment. And as I found out with the final scene, that doesn't always work all that well.

Saw myself on camera. I think I might be a vampire. I. am. white.

The Apple Magic Mouse is AMAZING. I love being able to jog back and forth with the sweep of finger.

Kelli has some great ad libs that are so low I never heard them until I started editing with quality headphones. Mike is a lot louder and it skips over him. Note to self: use two channel audio every time. I'm able to bring his volume down and hers up. It's great.

It sucks to kill your darlings. But I suppose that's just what good writing is.

I've been editing for the last hour with my fly unzipped. Good thing I wasn't Ustream-ing my editing progress.

Kent just sent over the coffee shop sequence with timing and sound. I'm rendering now. Can't wait to see it. I just sent him the exterior apt scene for color and sound treatment.

He had already timed and was working on the sound for that scene! It's like I'm out to make this guy work- I totally expressed my plan incorrectly to him. But Kent gets stuff done and seems to love tor work, you gotta love that in the film biz. It wasn't a problem for him and now this will even give me a chance to touch up the computer store sequence - which I was going to call locked so he could color and sound that one.

They just hit the lights in the hallway. I'm so glad I'm not editing a zombie movie right now.

I wonder what time the deadline is tomorrow? I facebooked DeadCenter - we'll see.

The Office sequence is cut. It is funny.

The Long One-Take

OK Go does it again!
Brilliant!



I'm a fan of the long one-take. Often times it can take me out of a scene because I recognize them - and I recognize that I like them. But then I just get filled with so much emotion for whatever is happening in the scene I can hardly handle myself. They inspire me, and I find that they often engross others as well.

I think this is probably why OK Go got away with a tarp as a background in a badly lit gym with non-spectacular treadmills in the music video that made them famous - ADD LINK HERE

Here's one of my ALL TIME favorite fight scenes. (And I'll admit I've only barely seen the movie - and I still can't get over the tension in the scene - I had a problem in college with falling asleep in the middle of movies, it was weird.)
One versus many and they don't even pull out the classic ninja badguy fight strategy of "One-at-a-Time". This is one bad mother-shut-yo-mouth with a hammer, working his way through a hallway crowded with toughs.



The world got shook up with this one. A pretty normal guy has to escort the first baby in almost 30 years through a grim firefight in the not-too-distant-dystopian-future. Even with blood splatter hitting the screen at one point - I never caught on that this was one take. Probably the best choreography with the most and biggest actions happening on screen. This involves a whole wall blowing out and a lot of haunting facial expressions.

Never mind, can't find the shot anywhere, Universal had it removed from YouTube. But if you've seen Children of Men, then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a classic one that's actually references another classic opening shot. It's from The Player, and another of my favorites - but how could it not be when it's 8 minutes long - that's almost an entire can of film!



And here's the shot that the studio exec was referencing, from A Touch of Evil



And just because you need one that's EXTRA CRAZY, leave it to Thailand to knock your socks off with a long take where our hero faces an entire building of badguys while running up a spiral staircase. You can feel this guy's intensity and determination even though some of the fighting is a little contrived. It's the real beauty of the Long One-Take.



They used to call them "Tracking Shots" but you can see the difference in OK Go and in Touch of Evil. We don't have to keep them on the dolly and tracks anymore. Though I guess it still does "track" someone. Now the GlideCam gives us the ability to "float anywhere" and make up for any timing miscues.

Where are your favorite One Long Take Shots?

Blogging While Editing 3 - DYWTGO?

Thought I was making good time until I watched the entire sequence. There is a lot of work to do. Basically all touchups. I may have used a reaction shot twice, and I can't seem to find the “room tone” we got, which should help me edit because some of the cuts just DO NOT work because the sound is shaved off here and there. So it pops in and out. I can't tell if I'm jump cutting or if the sound is jarring me.

Nonlinear editing. The reaction shots tell a different story every time. I'm trading in about six different ones at two different spots and it's just such a hard choice. Found it. I think. I replayed 2 seconds over so many times I need to leave it alone for a while. But one thing is for sure, Jane (Kelli) had a great reaction and now it's in – which I didn't expect.

Lost. Somehow we didn't get audio on two glidecam shots. Need direction here.

Just made edited Lauren's lines from “You would not believe” and “I just don't understand” into “I just don't believe” and “You would not understand”. Making her next perfectly delivered line have even more of a punch.

Poll Question: Does this make me A.) a genius; or, B.) a George Lucas style director; or, C.) a complete hack. I'm not sure, but it'll make the movie better....

Not sure I've got the momentum to finish. It's getting late and I've reached a point where those soundless glidecam shots look like they are perfect for what this needs. I've spent hours getting just a couple of lines off those shots but they are pretty shakey as far as sync goes, and I have to cut away before you really get the sense that you're on the glidecam anyway defeating the purpose at some pivitol moments. I think I might know where the audio is but I would lose at least an hour getting it.

So do I keep editing so I can have this finished? Or do I move on to the other sequences where I have to relearn where all the shots are? Think my best bet is to move on. This sequence is maybe killing me a little much.

Just watched all that I have again. It looks really good. I need to shave a lot of that silence I spent so much time protecting though. I can see now it could be a lot tighter. Hope I have time to do that before Wednesday – the Dead Center Deadline.

This opening coffee shop scene is working pretty well. I think it's a good start. The only thing that could make it better, and something it really needs, is more swirling around in the opening shot, the way I designed it. I just got flustered because I had blocked it for an entirely seperate coffee shop. And then when we got there no one was in there while I worked the new blocking. We just didn't have enough people. But oddly, by the time we got the perfect take, the shop was hopping, we all just sort of were consumed with getting the shot we'd designed.

I think I just became a stock holder in Dr. Pepper this weekend.

It's funny. They say, if there is a train track anywhere near by, get a shot of the train. Sure enough. I could have used a shot of the train. The big decision of the movie just happens to take place while a train whistle is blairing and rocking Java Dave's. It sounds awesome but is totally out of place with no contex. You are actually able to see the train from the window but we just didn't think to get a shot of the “cat in the window”, or train, in this instance.

Looking good. I went an hour over when I need to go to bed but I think it's in quality enough shape to enter into Dead Center. It should make it into the Oklahoma films category as is. If they give me more time, I know I could make it into the competition.

Scratch that. After putting all the sequences together I remembered I don't have the ending yet. Dangit. Lots of work to be done. Also, the interior needs a LOT of shaving down of little silent moments. If it looks the way things are now, I might need to tack on the surprise ending I've been keeping in my pocket...

Blogging While Editing 2 - DYWTGO?

Now I've got them sitting on the couch so I can use the closeups (which are comprised in the first half of the same conversation as when they are trying to sit on the couch). The problem is that these shots show more of the akward “connection” though not as funny. They are also composed georgously, filmicly even. I may have to scratch the last five hours of editing and just get them to the couch before they talk. Again I'm reminded of the writing process involved in editing video.

Fell aslep contemplating next move. Time to pack it up and go to sleep.

Started back up around 7am. Was worried at one point about them having no connection whatso ever show up on screen but then I had a hapy accident. Some footage overlapped while I was trying to figure out the next shot and we see and hear kelli say, “so you repair computers?” and it was followed by her voice saying “that's cute”. The line is one she ad libbed while shooting from the unicorn's POV and the unicorn is what she was talking about. But with a little magic and some help from pre-“action” shy and figity smiles, I was able to make it look like it slipped out of her after he said, “yes”. So then it made it cute-funny when he starts to ad lib and ramble about working on “some laptops and PC's and some Macs – but I'm not really certified” Then another ad lib she gave was to ask him which which was better. It made the question go from good “yes-and” skills to brilliant. Because now it's clear she's asking because she thinks it's cute.

The only problem? The stupid director got in my way AGAIN! I actually cut them off as Mike started to explain and Kelli is really listening. I thought it was funny but didn't think I could use it. Looking back, maybe I sensed the real chemistry happening that goes along with good acting, and then I started feeling shy-akward – because that's what I'm seeing now on screen. Next time I need to wear a shirt that says, “Get out of your way, Jake”.

There's an “Oh” that could go anywhere. I can't figure out where's the best. For some reason I don't want to lose it. It's sort of a strange shot to hold on to.

These closeups are so much better than the full shots. That could be because the full shots don't look filmic. I intentionally left them as full shots, eye level, on tripods, in order to stay true to the film's spine - “Silent Film”. But the problem is that film gramar has evolved so much that this shot has become the mark of the amatuer. And that's a big problem in a short film from a nobody. It could get away with looking like a sitcom, but really I would have had to light it brighter. Or do a lot of timing on the colors. But that would take it away from the warm 16mm film look I had in the beginning.

I'm really thinking about scrapping all the work from yesterday and starting over to get them to sit without saying their lines.

It's interesting how LESS blocking can make something seem more filmic sometimes.

I just found another take with a few more GREAT lines. I'm going to have to get them in but that means going backwards for a bit. It shouldn't be too hard or too time consuming though. It should definitely be worth it.

Okay. Not sure it's worth it. Maybe it slows all that momentum down.

It actually did. Way better without it where I had it but it is perfect for slowing down the momentum just as Mary (Lauren) bursts through the door. I forgot to really push for the surprised “Buster Keaton-esque” reaction from Mike to the door, but I think we have enough to work with to keep it surprising and funny.

Made it to Lauren's entrance. Time for a break.

Blogging While Editing - DYWTGO?

Now I can feel why Kent with the first draft the way he did for the final scene. He took all the angles from the first take because those matched up the easiest. It was more of a rough assembly to get the thing in a sequence. Sort of like writing a screenplay draft without outlining/treament writing or breakdowns. It was a good move. After that first take, the continuity is CRAZY. I'm truly writing with my edits here. I'm using a separate take every 2 seconds. It's hard!

Every choice I make at each 2 second interval changes the story, the lines, everything.

It's crazy how a little outside stress can deflate all momentum. Since Kent has a brand new system, his saved files won't run on my Mac – it's too old. So, I have to borrow Ashley's laptop to get this done. I also don't have a hookup for an external monitor, so it's all on a tiny screen. But... it's getting done.

So I'm switching to something a little more “skill” oriented – putting together the DVD menu. Definitely going to use the poster but now I'm envisioning some sort of opening with all the info being typed in, like a chat room thing.

Maybe I don't design DVDs so well without the finished product.

Next time, all akward humor gets choreographed. Like a dance. I remember Kent trying to figure out when Kelli said the line and when Mike stood back up. I told him to forget it and basically I told him we'd fix it in post! He said, “who's editing this thing?” and I said, “me”. So he let it go. Then I tried to pay him way under his rate and he got to deal with it. Man, I really tried to screw Kent on this one! This is tough! But then it all came back to me and now I've screwed myself... This is why Ashley needs to be there during the reshoot. She's the only one I ever listen to when she says to stop and pay attention to continuity.

My son just showed a growth spirt in development. The kids called to say goodnight and he was telling me all kinds of things. Still can only pick out words here and there, but there is definitely a marked difference in his speech. Man that's awesome. And there's that little inspiration I needed.

Working really hard to stretch each beat of akward. They play it really well, it's just that there's no breathing room for the audience. We found so much good stuff while shooting! It was basically a really great rehearsal. Had we had this and then gotten to shoot, it would've put more of that funny into the silence. I'm still so impressed with my actors. I haven't had this great a cast to work with since Rich, Jubal, and Brent did a scene from A Simple Plan with me (that I totally screwed up in the editing of that one – I edited with Movie Maker while hiding in the editing lab at CSF over night on the last day of finals.)

Dad wants me to eat the last piece of chicken. Because it's there. I already ate one... and potatoes, but he said “eat that last piece of chicken.”

“No, Dad.”

“But it's dark meat.”

See: Blogging While Editing 2 - Entrance to Delerium for more funny on this very topic.

Made it through “sit on the couch play”. On to finding a connection. Having some continuity would have helped me already be there. I need to wear a shirt on my next shoot that says “I will NOT fix this in post”.

Dad's sleeping through Rocky IV blasting in the living room. Appolo Creed just died. I don't care if you are Russian and a Commie Sypathiser, that Rocky IV is a good show.

First Cut Round 2

Well. I survived my initial shock. It took some time to handle myself. It's strange how even when you know you're supposed to be disappointed, how you can still be devastated when you meet your first rough cut. My breakdown was documented as a way to exercise a few demons, it was a tad tongue in cheek, and I tried to go over board, but that feeling of helplessness was never-the-less there.

It is quite comforting to know that all directors experience this pain. And I'm wondering how they've come to manage it, or if that's why they now often have editing studios set up in their homes. Pillows to scream in to are never far away.

This time around, I showed some of the footage in a workshop. To 6-8th graders. Out of order. (It was in an effort to show how we write with images. They had different and changing perspectives based on what I chose to put on screen, when to focus on what, and how fast I was cutting. It's essentially describing the scene like in a novel but with images).

This was a brand new experience. I was informed that my movie was certainly a thriller, based on how nervous the main character was, and that there were two guys focused on for a minimum of five seconds. This was actually reinforcement of where I thought it was and so I felt like I knew what I was doing. It was encouraging.

Also encouraging was how funny the students thought the middle scene was. Michael Price is truly a gifted actor and this middle scene is hilarious. I didn't show the ending because I didn't want to give it away. I also know where I'm going with it in the next edit.

Not to mention: After I calmed down a bit, I gained a little more perspective. This rough cut was from the first take. And it was essentially, a shot of the rehearsal.

I know the scene has so much more energy because I've seen the dailies. And I'm excited to get back to it.

Just remember kids: The first cut is always the worst day of a director's life. You will get through it.


Tuesday I meet Kent to work the edit. I can't wait.

First Cut Nightmare

I met with my editor on my latest short film over iChat via the new built in Final Cut Pro viewer. The experience was really awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed it and rarely experienced even the slightest lag time (and that's with AT&T wireless too!).
I told myself, "Now Jacob, this is only a rough cut. This is going to be the worst day of your life in this production. Prepare for that and maybe you won't take it so hard."

You see, it's a rule. It's just one of those "givens". The director's worst day will always be the day you see the rough cut. You should plan on drinking afterward.

When the footage started rolling, I followed right along... Rolling that is.
The rough cut looks AMAZING! I'm laughing just thinking about it! Sure there were things to fix, but nothing major, and certainly NOTHING wrong with it. I'm excited. I'm overjoyed. This could be big.

I was ecstatic.

I had the privilege of viewing another two sequences and I couldn't tell you how awesome it felt. This is really coming together.

My editor (Kent Jones) finished another sequence. The final sequence. The stuff with talking. The culmination. The punchline - the button. I was so excited to see even the footage in a rough assembly. Kent told me he was scrapping the first cut of this sequence all together and approaching it another way. But it didn't matter, I was just so anxious to see a cut, after seeing the other sequences - I'm a brilliant auteur destined for greatness.

Pride. And I forgot to warn myself about that little rule. Well, two rules, now that I mention it. One about Pride and before the falling. The other being the said "Rough-Cut-Ready-to-Drink" Rule.

I watched it. What in the Sam Hill was I thinking? Why did I let the actors get away with that ... that crap? How did I not see the life being sucked out of the room with the pure lack of energy?! I remember telling them to mumble a bit - and even talking my main character out of playing it up too much. What was I thinking?! They were doing exactly what I told them to do!

Lauren Ryan is playing a mean person - why didn't she stay in character after the take - and SLAP ME! Michael Price is some sort of genius, right? He should of told me. He should have said - the physics don't work here, Jake. It's some sort of conspiracy. I know it. Those three actors don't like me. They did it on purpose. It was probably because I didn't feed them - I mean, that is sort of a cardinal sin in film production.

It's everyone on set's EFFING FAULT. No, it's my fault.

Oh saxophone!

This is the worst day of my film career. And my last too. I'm sure of it now. It's obvious.

It's bad. I'll never work in this town again.

Someone tell me it's okay. Kent is starting over. It's going to be okay, right?

I...

Oh nightmare before Valentine's Day. Don't let it be so.

I should quit filmmaking. I seem to be doing pretty well with that EdTechSpecialties thing over there.

Son of ---

Section 181 Highest Priority for Filmmakers Right Now

Do you know about The Jobs Creation Act of 2004?  Particularly Section 181? There seems to be a lack of knowledge about the subject around the filmmaking community. In fact, I found out about this in the year the law was scheduled to sunset. Luckily it was renewed. But then it sunset again, and now it is up for debate in our the Senate Finance Commitee. 

This law provides for investors to have a 100% write off on ANY invested dollar amount from $1 up to $15 million ($20 in economically depressed regions). The ONLY requirement is that the investor is classified as a passive investor in order to write off passive income, or be an active investor to write off active income. Passive investors need have to not do anything. You send them a company letter that thanks them for being a passive investor and points them to their tax advisor to fill out the proper paperwork. 


Assuming you are approaching investors that make enough to invest, they probably pay 35% taxes. This means that you provide the investor with a 35% benefit for investing with you. If they invest $100,000, then $35,000 was NOT lost because it was going to go to taxes anyway. This means to make your investors money back, you only have to get 65% of the way there.


Even better, this federal incentive can be combined with ANY other incentive. Which means if your film is shot in Oklahoma, at the close of principle photography, you will receive your 35% rebate. Which means just by setting up shop in Oklahoma, you are at 70% benefit to the investor. Which means you only have to make up 30% when you move to distribution. 


What business can an investor put money in to where that is the case? 70% of the money is not risked!


But the law has sunset. And the renewal proposal has passed the House. It would have passed right on through the Senate as well had some Republicans not viewed it as a part of Health Care, and some Democrats not viewed it as a "Bush Tax Plan".


So there will be debate. This Section 181 will be scrutinized along with the rest of the law.


As filmmakers you CAN NOT allow this law to sunset!


Call your senators' offices (or call them all) and let them know you support and desperately need Section 181.


They are business people and often don't get that film is a business. But let them know that film creates jobs. And that American movies are one of the largest money making exports from our country.


Some points to make to your Senator: Not just film makers go to work when production companies roll in to town, either. But hardware stores spike in sales, newspapers go flying off the racks, tourism gets a MAJOR boost, catering services, hotels, bars, event planners, drivers, etc, etc. Even our court systems see a boost as Oklahoma City found out as Jessica Alba and her United Way / Save the Sharks "Campaign" landed her with major fines (you don't necessarily have to make that point - I'm just sayin'). 


Film productions bring in "free" money to a location that wasn't getting that money anyway. 


They went back in to session January 19th. Make the calls or send the emails NOW.


Refer to HR 3931 to be more precise. Or find out more here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03931:@@@X


This link will give you all the Senators' contact information.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state


Add more points to make in the comments - let's make sure all of us know all the angles.

Oscars Make it 10 - America Wins

In case you didn't know, the Academy has added 5 more nomination spots to the Best Picture category. So 10 films will be nominated. Voters will have 10 films to choose from.

At first glance this seems like an awful idea. Can you think of 10 great films from last year? Won't that just water down the competition? What's the point of having a best foreign film category or "Best Animated"? Doesn't that cheapen their nominations? People say.

But I like it. I mean, let's face it, just because your movie is long, emotional, dramatic, and has great cinematography, doesn't mean your film should have a leg up in the Oscar run. Especially when your film is blown away by the cinematic experience that was The Dark Knight, or even something like Iron Man. Did anyone see "The Reader" last year - I yawned at the cover (and I'm not one to skip over dramatic fair for popcorn adventures either).

Those films aren't taken seriously, in fact it's extremely hard to get noticed in the major categories with a scifi, fantasy, comic book, or even animation merely because of their genre. With opening to ten we will begin to see these films that speak to us in different forms. I find this extremely important. No longer will you need to be a huge studio drama or an indie darling looking to settle for best screenplay and grounded in reality.

The real benefactor here is the Academy, and film in general as a business. Some believe that lengthening the category means lengthening the broadcast. This, to them, equals less viewers.

I have to whole-heartedly disagree! You see, the problem with viewers is not that they don't have attention spans, it's that with the internet, our attention spans are becoming more focused. We are seeing clear divisions within genres (comedy: romantic comedies, bromances, buddy pics, parody, mockumentary, etc) because audiences are able to more clearly find what it is they are interested in. Therefore, there are less viewers because there are less people interested in the subject matter. I don't mean celebrities or movies in general. I mean that movies like "The Reader" aren't interesting to people, and they don't see it as a "great" achievement in film making if it doesn't interest them.

I'm not advocating "Transformers" being nominated for Best Picture, or even trying to appeal to mass markets in general - that's what the MTV Movie Awards are for. 


What I'm saying is that there is a GREAT NEED to select more films for best picture because the category is so subjective anyway, and our subjects have divided greatly. Therefore there is a need for more representation across the board.

People will tune in because they will now have their favorite in the race. The south and central states (a traditionally tough sale for the Academy) will double their viewership from The Blindside. The other hard market for films to sell to, black Americans, will double in viewers from Precious. Two deserving films to be in the running for Best Picture, but hardly a chance when only five films would be nominated.

Another unusual nominations who will bring more people in who usually wouldn't bother, District 9, a sci-fi action film, part fake documentary, part traditional thriller. This is the "dark-horse" in the race. This could possibly win by the other films knocking each other off the top spot.

With 5 nominations we'd have five traditional "bland" choices (not bland movies, I'm sure - but obvious Oscar-darlings non-the-less). Now we have films we really care about in the race, and a more interesting race all together.

The winners, again, will be the studios. Now 10 films get to put that all-important wreath icon on their DVD covers. This has proven to be a major push in DVD sales and will help more DVDs sell across the board.

Theaters win here, too. Like Gladiator a few years back, a summer movie was re-released into the theaters after it was nominated for best picture, and it made more money for the studio and the theaters from repeat and brand new viewers.

Another group of winners? Advertisers. It's been the popular trend to treat the nomination like a political affair. The more money spent on advertising with "Pick me! Pick me!" the better chance you have of winning. Now 10 films - 10 production companies - will be spending a LOT more money to fight for space in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, on TV, on billboards, etc. More advertising dollars spent means more money spread out. And we are talking tens of millions of dollar bills.

When you look at it, it's a a win for Uhmurica, people. DVD sales means retail movement, theaters get more,  ad space skyrockets, people go to work here, people.

Economy: Win. 

make movies all the time

In that Robert Rodriguez spirit, I didn't hesitate to pick up the video camera and start shooting the story Emme told me this weekend. I was so moved to just be in the room when her mind started rolling. To literally see her eyes as she created from nothing, and not even from me asking her to tell me a story....

I must admit, I'm not that big of a fan of Robert Rodriguez films. But I've learned a LOT from him. I haven't read his book and I've never seen "El Mariachi" or "Shorts". I wasn't that thrilled by his section of "Sin City" and I think he was outdueled in Grindhouse. I'm not even interested in "Shark Boy and Lava Girl".

But I am so inspired by him.

Why?
It used to be because of his legend. There are rumors that circulate the film community that may or may not be true. There are people who would fight you for having issues with the plot holes in "Desperado", there is an entire race of people that will show up to see his movies no matter what he comes up with (I'm talking about Texans).

I hear he was a drug tester in Austin to make money to buy the film stock for El Mariachi? When it wasn't enough, he sold his future dead body to science. When that wasn't enough he sold his grandmother's to science.

And he made the movie. He shot an action movie by editing in camera. And he kept on making movies.

Creative Screenwriting Magazine's Podcast (download here or check it out on iTunes - it's awesome) featured him on a panel at Comic Con 2009 after a special screening of "Shorts". He had so much energy. So much passion. And most of that was directed towards his family.

He spent most of the time talking about how the people around him were family. How they fed off of eachother and worked and lived together. Then he talked about making movies with his kids. He encouraged everyone to take their kids out in the back yard and start making movies. He joked that it was all he did now, it was just that his back yard was a massive film set.

But he said that his kids have grown up there and that they were used to it. And they could let their creations and imaginations run free. He said how it was the most sophisticated form of expression to create a story and realize it on film. And I believe that fully (And I would know - I'm in Education *I say in my most proper and academia of voices*).

And then he dropped the real bomb on me. He stated that "Shorts" was not from his mind, but from the mind of his children. He wrote down what they said, and kept the order of events and the storylines just as they expressed them. That "Shorts" was an exercise in realizing what it is like to live in a neighborhood where the kids all on the street all have their own stories and they are all happening at the same time and from time to time will intersect. He said that his kids not only created the stories but mentioned how they auditioned for the parts to play themselves. Two of them got parts, one of them got to play him self. But they all got to hang out on set and be apart of the creation and realization. They got to order crew members around.

Then he stated again - get out there and just keep making movies.

It inspires me because it is so easy to NOT make movies. You see, I've studied this stuff exhaustively. You need a cinematographer and a sound guy and then you have to edit. You need crew, you have to feed the crew. You got to coordinate and spend money and settle for less than what was in your head. So then you think you need big money and if that doesn't stop you, that means you need to focus on business, which is just like any other business venture - cut throat.

And suddenly you are further and further away from your passion. From the reason you started making movies in the first place. I can't tell you how long it's been since I filmed a "fight scene". It was the first thing I ever filmed in fact. I did it all in camera, too. No Final Cut Pro. No sound engineer. I couldn't figure out how to expose for Ephraim's skin without whiting out Brandon's. I didn't worry about production value and how long it would take to build the dolly tracks. Ephraim kept dropping his Jamaican accent, and Brandon kept "whining" about being really punched in the nose, and almost breaking his finger... and twisting his ankle off. The fight started at 11am and 2 minutes later the Jamaican villain, Boombostic, was "Finshed: Fatality!" against the setting sun. And it was awesome. And it was thrilling - the making of, I mean. Well, I'm sure the fight scene was thrilling, too.

But I just went and made it. And from that I learned and moved to the next fight scene. There was this momentum. The production value went up. The amount of people chipping in went up. I had people pitching me characters to play and fight against. And because I just got out there and just started making movies - I just kept on making movies.

Even in the middle of making my "epic", I did every homework assignment with video. Anytime a friend came over, we made a movie. Other people around me started making movies. It was crazy.

But somewhere along the lines, someone told me I had to make it perfect. Someone told me I had to have substance and drama. And so I sought after the most meaningful shots and the perfect exchange from actors. I slowed down. I let things slow me down. And the movie making ground to a halt while I kept putting it off until I could make the movie perfectly.

The realization has hit me hard the past couple of years. And yet, Rodriguez has instantly inspired me to move forward. That is, once I put his already inspiring message together with a spent day helping Emme realize her story on screen. Once I just started making a movie.

Emme's story was a good one - just hillarious as she told. I didn't do it justice on screen, but Emme and Cooper saw themselves in a story they created. And that was epic.

And though it's nearly impossible to edit in camera with a 4 and 2 year old, the 6 hours of editing was far from exhausting. It was inspiring. And I've now charged myself with the responsibility of making sure my kids never know the limits of their imaginations, and so, in turn, maybe I will forget the limits of mine. I look back and see my dad was doing that for me when we'd go out "on a mission" into the woods to "shoot some Russians" and get the POW's back (what? it was the 80's). We didn't have the video camera but I'm sure dad would have loved to have the simple luxery of capturing (what was actually his - now looking back) imagination running wild on screen.

Always make movies, people. Expressing you, is how we process. And processing what goes in us and through us, makes us better people. And like me and my friend Robert said, making movies is the highest form of expression. Even if you don't have a four year degree in film, keep on making movies. You don't need no stinking school learnin'. Robert Rodriquez is still taking college classes to earn his film degree. And Hollywood begs him to create for them (note his charge to reboot the Predator series).

INTERESTING NOTE on SERENDIPITOUS CYCLES: I was obsessed with Mortal Kombat (the video game) and the idea that two characters could square off against each other and it could be so riveting without a story - the special powers and outfits said everything. I realized I could film a movie without a story. So the idea was circulating of shooting a bunch of fight scenes. My father took me out one weekend to get away. We saw "Mortal Kombat" in the theater and I was kind of satisfied by seeing the fights I'd imagined realized on film. I think it had honestly quenched my thirst to do it myself. And then we wanted to kill more time, so we walked into "Desperado" (Rodriguez's sequel to "El Mariachi". And I realized a movie didn't have to be perfect, that the story didn't have to be perfect, it just had to be fun. I remember talking to my dad about the movies. I may have really analyzed a film for the first time.

The next weekend I shot the first scenes of Moron Kombat. And some of you know the rest from there.
For anyone else... It's waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too long of a story.

Maybe it's time I read that book of his. Rebel Without a Crew.

The Book of Eli

The first of the religious apocolypse movies this year sets the bar pretty high.

Contrary to critics quoted on recent TV spots it’s not the first must-see movie of the year, unless you see movies every weekend, and then, yeah, see this one first. It’s also not epic. I don’t know where these critics come up with these quotes but this is a relatively small film. It is a great January/February fit between awards and summer. And I'd take it against most of the coming summer popcorn fair, too.

This is The Road Warrior with a studio budget. A lone wanderer, just trying to reach his destination, is pulled into helping an entire community because only he will stand up to the badguys. It takes place some 30 years after a war that ended in nuclear destruction of civilization. Most people died, some survived. Many blamed religion for the wars and they systematically burned all religious books. Eli holds the only surviving copy of the Holy Bible, and he’s been “told by God” to take it west and that he will be protected. The film then expertly takes on a mantra from a bible verse, “walk by faith and not by sight”.

This film is unique because it doesn’t pander to any “broad” audience in a way I don’t ever remember seeing before.  This film manages to stay purely biblical (meaning none of the broad-stroke mysticism you get from most of Hollywood trying not to offend people) without preaching or having any agenda at all. And all without pulling punches. It's just a story about a guy who just happens to be a bad-ass and a Christian (yep, I just said that). It doesn’t appologize for ITS CHARACTER being a little evengelical and it doesn’t appologize for its characters that are purely evil and holding a mirror up to some of our religious leaders of all kinds.

The characters here, and their motivations, are believable, deep, unique, and fleshed out. And it is what makes Denzel's Eli so great to watch on film - even when he seems to be reaching into his Denzel Washington bag of tricks (the moments happen - but it you'll get over them quickly). He, and his bag of tricks, are a lot of fun. And when he whips out his knife, we believe what he’s capable of and can’t wait to see it happen.

Gary Oldman as Carnegie is fully realized and sympathetic as well. He does suddenly develop a southern bible-belt evangelist accent whenever the topic of the book comes up. It's a little hokey, and yet he's so committed, and gets out of the hamming it up quickly enough to save himself, especially as the story moves forward. I felt it was an easy and pretty lame choice as far as the accent goes - but that really only because it's been overdone that way. Oldman still brings his A-game when it comes to playing the intentions so we can forgive the fake southern charmer thing.

Unique here also, is that the antagonist and protagonist both want the same thing with this book, they want to spread the word of God. Eli has been told to go west with it so it can spread and our villian, knowing the power of religion, wants to use it to spread the Word of God as filtered and controlled by him.

For me, this makes him extremely evil. Not only is he seeking control, but he’s doing it through means we know and have seen work time and time again. From cults that divide members from their families through out of context scriptures, to terrorist cells, we see religion used by people that believe they are in the right and doing right all the time. Carnegie's motivations here are truly to bring order. And what's chilling is: you believe him. You know it will work and that he would be successful. He doesn't want to slaughter and enslave mankind, he just wants order. And for a second you'll ask yourself, "if he gets that book, won't the "good word" spread anyway? Maybe Eli should just let him have it." Brrrrrrrrrr. Chills. That's how well it's played.

What's also interesting is something is being said about God and humanity, people and religion, but you honestly have no idea what its conclusion is. I like that, it's a topic study without a presentation from each side. You don't have to think about it, or even care, because the action and story and screenplay are so good.

At the end you think you know what the film has concluded in the underlying thesis. It seems obvious. And then, in the closing seconds, notice the publishing company name on all the books placed on the shelf. You can’t help but know this was intentional and seems to be completely contrary to everything we’ve just explored. It’s interesting to say the least, and deserves a discussion.

But before all that heavy talk, you can gasp at the blood and carnage and explosions. All in all, it is a solid action film. Competent acting and directing provides for suspense in the right spots, tension where it needs to be, emotional nuances, and a plot that is slick enough on top of archetypal characters you can’t help but write solid dialogue for.

Filmmakers Lesson Learned: Good actors can sometimes overcome self-indulgent filmmaking. So cast well. Stay true to your characters, not your plot, not your action scenes, not even your thesis. Your audience will follow. As I've said before, listen to your characters and let them guide you - You are not even God in your own story.

Legion

Waste of time.

If you think you have to see it, wait for DVD. Or see if you can stream it from somebody’s digital camera they snuck into the theater.

No, wait, I take that back. Make sure to pay for it. I like Paul Bettany. And you can just feel it in the air how much he is trying to be viewed as an action star. I think he deserves it too. He’s got the acting chops, and he looks danged good on film holding M-60's and whipping a bazooka around.  Obviously he got tired of being cast in the “actor’s” role and wants to do something superhero-ish. So I think you should support him. Maybe just pay for a ticket and then go see something else you wanted to see but were ashamed to admit – like To Save a Life or that Squekuel Alvin movie.

So Paul Bettany plays the archangel Michael who descends from heaven on December 23^rd, and because he too, decides to sell me out on coming to Ashley’s surprise party, he goes to his weapons cashe hidden in some regular building on the side of a busy LA street.

That’s right, the archangel Michael needs a lot of guns. Okay, well maybe it’s because he cut his wings off, not sure why, it did help him lose his halo I guess. Which was an electronic collar – what? That’s right, electronic collar, because God needs to keep electronic collar’s on his angels. Now, I’m okay with trying the imagery of the halo being a collar, but it actually drops off his neck and makes a mechanical whine sound before the light fades out. I guess it’s powered by the Holy Ghost battery power. 4 Double A’s.

He stands off with another angel who possesses a police officer and tries to stop Michael from going forward with his plan. This after Mike blows a hole in the side of the building he held all of his weapons in. And here’s how hokey it is, the blown hole is actually in the shape of a cross. I mean, that’s trying really hard to infuse it with religious imagery. What does that even mean? What was the thought process there? "Oh, this Michael character is from the Bible, so let's have him blow a cross shaped hole in the wall! YEAH!" Because crosses are in the Bible too. That's clever.

I can’t figure out why the angels possessed the humans and the would rush in and bite their targets. Usually demons posses people in order to operate in the fleshly world. I guess most of the angels didn't get the memo that Michael and Gabriel got - angels can fly around AND get shot by guns. It was clearly more effective when Gabriel flew in using his bullet proof wings (they actually make metal ricochet sounds when the bullets hit). Or why didn’t they just come in as themselves – Michael did it pretty well too. But why did Michael fight Gabriel with guns anyway? And why did he take off his wings, he lost like 5 hours driving a stolen cop car from LA when he could have flown.

Then Gabriel fights with this really awesome mace. It’s looks like the very weapon you’d expect an S&M suited archangel to carry. He puts it against Michael's face… and then pushes a button on the side and the handle. The mace starts to rotate!… Yes Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor, apparently they do have power tools in Heaven.

See, it all gets so stupid you can’t just go with it. The real problem is that it takes itself SO incredible seriously. I mean, some of my favorite films of all time are 3000 Miles to Graceland, Mortal Kombat, Highlander, etc. I know what a B movie is - I know how to suspend my disbelief. This fails to help me in anyway. It is concerned with getting from one image to the next, and with letting Paul Bettany carry around large guns. And that is it.

Proof of this idea is after the grandma demon (popular from the previews) is shot and killed. The teenager is freaking out in her corner booth when blood starts dripping on her face. She looks up into a ceiling vent and more blood is coming out of the vent and dripping on her face. And that's the last we ever visit that image. No one mentions there’s blood dripping from inside the ceiling, no one goes to check if someone is caught in the air ducts. The teenager even fails to alert the manager of the store that his air ducts might need cleaning … DUE TO BLOOD COMING OUT OF THE CEILING TILES!!!

What you would think would be covered in blood and action, actually leaves the gunfire quite sparse. There are moments of hightened action sequences and then suddenly it all stops. It’s strange. All the characters keep breaking up in twos and asking eachother about their home life. This has to account for at least two thirds of the film. It’s actually kind of interesting and it is well acted, but it left me squirming and bored because I was there to see action. I thought the action was going to get better. It didn’t. And at the end of the film I looked back thinking I should have tried more to enjoy the two person acting scenes.

Sadly, you've seen every action sequence from the previews. What you thought were tiny snippets were actually the entire reveal. It ruins any chance of surprise and you quickly realize it was just there to get you to pay for the ticket and to take up a couple more minutes in the script. The grandma demon, the icecream man demon, and the lots of demons including the little kid that talks like a woman on steriods (which his voice was probably the scariest thing in the whole the movie) are all just about as long as you see them in the trailer.

What was really good about this movie? The casting. It is the only thing it has going for it. I decided not to look up anything about this movie in an attempt to guess where the director came from based on what I saw. It had to have been a music video director. This is at best a B-movie. But then it takes itself so seriously you can’t help but hate it. But that’s like a music video where the singer is over acting her singing movements. All the visuals you can think of are slapped across the screen, and you do your best to fill every face in the frame with a star or someone beautiful. But you can stand it because it's three minutes and a good song. Luckily for this group of actors, they were all really well cast together and with parts that fit so well.

It's evident that the image is the only thing being paid attention to in the film.

I also think we inadvertantly created a new action star. As much as I like Paul, he will need to try again (and unfortunately he is scheduled to try again with the same director - I looked him up - he came from the special effects department - I knew it was all about what it looked like) The actor who plays Gabriel is magnificent - Kevin Durand. It may very well be only his onscreen presence, but it is phenomenal. He's powerful even when soft spoken, his voice has the hypnotic resonance to it, he holds a power tool mace really well when framed in the doorway against a bright light, and I absolutely bought his dilemma, his pain, and even his hurt in the moment he finds that he was wrong. He should be playing the next Conan the Barbarian.

The sound design was also superb. The mix is haunting and creepy in all its use of sound and I swear something was done to Gabriel’s voice that made me want to be on his side like I was in a trance.

But let me tell you, this film is a SHAMEFUL repackaging of Terminator. Trade a timetravelor and machine for two angels, and make Sarah Conner have the new hope for mankind during the final chase sequence. We even get an extremely similar monologue voice over that caps the beginning and end of the movie.

"Oh, and instead of being a chase through the city, let’s just stick it in one location. And since we can’t figure out how to keep the archangels at bay for two days, we’ll have angels possess humans. That way all our main characters get to shoot somebody." Suddenly it’s a zombie movie. Seriously, think Terminator but Sarah holds up in a restaurant, the Terminator just walks around outside, and then zombies show up to give her and her gang something to shoot.

It was ridiculous. And I don’t mean in the Rambo III / Missing in Action III kind of way. I mean because it was trying so hard it completely ruined any chance it had at being a laugh-with-me-and-watch-some-cool-action type of flick.

Lesson Learned: Make time for your screenplay. Even great actors can't overcome being in a music video. Oh, and make things make sense, unless you know they don't and you're winking at the audience. Don't be too clever for your own movie.