A guide for a religious viewing of Noah... Or WTH?

(forgive me, I really wanted this post out here but I'm writing from my phone - so let the spelling errors go for now - okay? gyahhhh)

1) Darren Aronofsky is not an atheist. Just go do some homework to figure that one out. Also, why would that ever matter? Maybe the dumbest argument against making a movie ever. Even if it were true he clearly has a better and deeper understanding of biblical texts than you. And that's just funny. I hope you're sad about that fact. 

Along those lines , i've heard several people complain about not being able to take their kids to this movie. WHAT?! Humanity was wiped out by drowning. The story ends with Noah being so drunk he's naked and cursing his son. The sacrilegious story of Noah is in your coloring books with all the happy smiley animals in a boat underneath a rainbow. That is sending the wrong message. The men of earth were wicked so God wiped them all out - man woman child! Let's get your story straight.

(not okay if the question is biblical accuracy - and hardly capturing the nature of the story)

2) Darren Aronofsky is not "Hollywood". He is far from it. He operates outside of the studio system, it's a pretty wellknown fact. If anybody refers to Noah as a "Hollywood movie", you can rest assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
Additionally, "Noah" was produced initially by none other than the main backer of "Passion of the Christ". Guess why the lava monsters look slightly like they're on the ScyFy channel? Answer: they didn't have a Hollywood budget.

3) "doesn't mention 'God' once": how dumb can a review be to judge a movie on it not mentioning a word? Now let's look at that logically, literally, and historically: The word God is an English reference to a higher power. Something the Old Testament doesn't even do because all of the names of God are mentioned in a way that references his/her manifestations. (Oh yeah, and it wasn't written in English). That is right I put in "her". Many of the names of God in the old testament are the feminine version of a word. "Shakina" (probably didn't spell that right) for example, references how a mother bear protects her cub.
Oh but wait. The young boy tells the main bad guy that his father told him no one is king because only God rules. So maybe you didn't see the movie? Also, the entire plot and force in the world is centered around "The Creator." Or, one all-powerful god of the universe.

4) "rock people": in the film these are fallen Angels. They were flung to earth to live in physical form by God for disobeying him. It is torturous and they must pull themselves from the earth melting everything around them creating their hideous forms which are essentially lava rocks. Now, biblically, there is reference in the very short few chapters of Noah, to fallen angels. Fallen angels that were breeding with humans and creating a race of giants. So the movie is not off-base using fallen angels existing alongside human beings.
But why did Aronofski choose to make them lava monsters? Well, if you were to do your homework, you would recognize these lava monsters as being characters in older stories of Noah. That's right Noah's flood story is older than what the book of Genesis goes back to. And I'm not even talking about the other older stories of a world wide flood, I am talking about Noah himself. What this would seem to tell us is that these stories come from one event. And their similarities would indicate that Genesis would have left just certain details out because they weren't needed, maybe. Let's think about why these details might be left out.  Maybe because - let's say this was an actual event that happened - when Abram was told by God to start telling everyone about the one true God and to change his name to Abraham, and start this religion, he would start about writing the Bible that we now have. He would take these true stories and focus on the points of The One Creator being in control. You see, the descriptions of the angels wouldn't be necessary to the greater part of the historical story.  He was born and came from a city that worshiped many gods. The gnostic bible (which was written first I'll add) believed that the creator was a doofus and demi-god who would create the world then destroy it and then create another one. The people of this religion worshiped the fallen angels as protectors and demi-gods and helpers of people. In a spiritual warfare, it would be wise to leave out their good deeds so that humans (who have a problem believing only what they see) wouldn't fall back in to those traps of worshipping "champions" (as described in Genesis' Noah). The point would be to erase the angels because they may very well have been good but these ancient people worshipped them instead of the true Creator. Think of it in terms of how history is written by those who conquered. 
So by all accounts these lava monsters very much fit into the biblical story of Noah. And if we treated the texts as history lessons, we'd need to include them by nature of using multiple accounts. In the movie they are used brilliantly to show how Noah could have built the ark "by himself", God allowed the fallen angels to help him. Additionally these fallen angels give us insight into the nature of God. It is biblically affirming that God required absolute obedience in the Old Testament. These fallen angels did something good by helping man but it was against the creators word so they were punished. And then in a surprise turn, these fallen angels are used plotwise, to affirm new testament beliefs that God is the redeemer, that he is forgiving and loving, and that being in the presence of God is the most wonderful thing. That is in this movie that the religious right has condemned without seeing! And it is blatant! Only this movie and the passion of the Christ are films that have showed these qualities of God without being super cheesy. And meanwhile it is the only movie I've ever seen to unabashedly show God as the old testament character who requires absolute obedience... or you die. 

5) "the movie is a liberal agenda-pushing film about vegans and environmentalists": NO. If you think that, you have a third grade level reading comprehension. Not only is this containing no agenda, though it is a part of the plot and character, but it is precisely pointed out in the chapters of Noah! What Aronofski does brilliantly, is to weave the clues to the message of Noah into the story that he has written. At the end of the story in Genesis when the family gets off of the ark, God gives them permission to eat animals and commands them to take care of the earth. After all that stuff had been written in Genesis, before the story of Noah, why would this story end with God's command to take care of the earth and make it a point to say it is okay to eat animals now? Maybe because those "wicked" people were manifesting their wickedness in raping the earth and then killing for meat rather than using the land the way it was intended. That is pretty logical to me and should be an okay summation. But Noah talks to his son about meat eating and using the earth when he explains why God is saving the animals. His son replies "because they are still living as they did in The Garden?" Again the movie confirms other pieces of Genesis and the nature of God and it is very simply woven into the script.
Noah is the last of the bloodline purely from Adam and Eve (in Genesis and in the film), and he is righteous in gods eyes because he is still living as the creator intended for man to live. Another affirmation of the book of Genesis calling Noah the only righteous man. And the word that is translated to "righteous" is referencing how just Noah is. This is another nice biblical affirmation Aronofski writes in when Noah proclaims "I want justice".

6) "Noah becomes a bloodthirsty psycho." NO. Again, if you can't understand what is going on in the movie then you have a third graders movie watching comprehension level. Just as an real life, God doesn't speak to us with a voice. Sometimes it is hard to know if we are doing the right thing, especially when it seems against our nature. Noah believes that the creator has chosen him to help all the animal species survive the flood but humans will die because they are wicked. He was chosen because he is so righteous and the only one with the guts to follow through with what God wants. All signs from the film have told us that this is a perfectly logical interpretation of what God wants, Noah isn't crazy, he is Godly. This is a part of the film that is only in the film and not the story of Genesis. Genesis does not give us clues as to what happened on the ark or what the humans were thinking. This is where it fills in a story to make it a movie. This is where it can sometimes get tricky, understandably. But this plot device is used in order to reveal the character of Noah and his family and God himself. It is also used to add the human element to this massive cataclysmic events.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! RUUUUN!!!!

Noah believes that God is telling him all the humans have to die because no one is able to have children and there are no more wives on the ship. All the signs in the film point to this. Okay that makes logical sense. When he discovers that the one who was not supposed to be able to have children is pregnant, and it was his wife's and his father's conspiracy that gave her the ability to conceive, he is angered because he believes they are going against God's will. He proclaims that if it is a female, he will kill the child. He is going to follow through with it not because he is psychopathic, but because he is, again, the only human with the guts to follow through with what the creator has ordered him to do.

Now, is this against the nature of God? Because I have seen a lot backlash about this particular part. So it seems to me we have forgotten the part that happened just 20 minutes earlier in the film (and about two sentences earlier in the bible) when 

the entire effing world and its inhabitants were DROWNED AND KILLED BY GOD HIMSELF! 

Oh yeah and remember when God tested Abraham by telling him to take Isaac to the top of the mountain to sacrifice him like a goat? This is nearly the same incident happening. Only Noah believes that this is the right thing to do just as Abraham believed it was the right thing to do. That is in your Bible!

LETS GET OUR STORY STRAIGHT HERE STUDENTS OF THE BIBLE AND STEWARDS OF THE EARTH. 

**bonus) this movie ends with such a heartbreaking and bitter sweet dramatic conclusion, that you can't help but feel for Noah. It is a true mark of a fantastic film. But beyond that, it fits what is happening in our minuscule story in Genesis. 

Did you ever realize Noah's story contains the first mention of wine? The first time someone is drunk, he is so hammered, he's naked and yelling obscenities at his own son, cursing all his future children. Our hero Noah, being all drunk off his high righteous-horse. Nothing is really mentioned of this further, and it's certainly not in any Sunday school lesson you'll ever hear, why don't we want to touch this? So Aaronoffski tries to explore what might be going on there. Bold. 

I'll explain his take so you won't have to think too hard: There was obviously tension between the father and son. And throughout the film the buildup to this creates real tension and drama and speaks a lot to father and son relationships. There is a real human moment where we understand what a man would go through having survived this cataclysmic event where he had a chance to save more people yet was bound by his devotion to a higher power to "stay the course" or walk that "straight and narrow path". (You see what's happening here in this study of Noah? Now do you get where this is mining allegory for the Christian?) Noah truly has survivors guilt. That would explain why he would become so drunk. He is alone and depressed, something humans experience absolutely. Not only do we feel this human condition, but it is concluded between the characters that Noah was the one given the choice to choose forgiveness or not. Again, another bold and decidedly Christian theological choice for the film. 

As Christians we regard the story of Noah as an allegory for Christ. We can think of Noah as a Christ figure, or more relevantly, the ark itself. This film not only confirms that, but drives it home. It shows that God gives us the choice of salvation. That is in this film blatantly! It is unashamed to make biblical references, it is unashamed to show God as a killer for disobedience (as is most usually conveniently scanned over when people make "Christian" movies), and it is unashamed to show God as giving us the choice to except forgiveness (also usually glossed over in "Christian" movies unless it is incredibly cheesy with a melodramatic atheist-fall-to-his-knees moment). It is bold in these ways that not even Christian filmmakers can seem to tackle. And it is done so without a shred of cheesiness. More than I can say about any other single film ever made dealing with theology. 

Why any Christian would call this film sacrilegious is absolutely beyond me and I have been angered by the responses to the film. We should be supporting these movies over the crap that is being made by Sony and other studios that has no chance of ever having relevancy outside of youth group attendance. And that is created solely to make money off of you, making you think there is some sort of movement within Hollywood to make all films Christian in the future. It's an absurd marketing ploy you buy in to hook line and sinker, and it's shameful really (I'm looking at you, "God's Not Dead" - completely laughable Christ-sploitation cinematic trash).

Bombs of The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger didn't suck. I happened to like it very much. I consider myself a connoisseur of Lone Ranger and Westerns in general. I didn't have high expectations and didn't read reviews, so I was going in pretty "blank slate". It was original, and certainly a much better take on The Lone Ranger than previous attempts, AND waaaaaaaay better than what audiences think they want to see (a realistic version of a man in a mask and white hat with a follower Indian in the 1800's... which is pretty stupid). It is definitely NOT a 20% Rotten Tomatoes score-worthy movie.

Where'd the BOMB come from? 

It was marketing:
The previews set it up for failure by showing the fantastical stuff (horse jumping off a train car - in a tree - etc). People interested in Westerns were turned off and those not interested thought it looked stupid. Once the movie got to those scenes I thought it worked though.

Another problem is this INSANE idea that Tonto HAS to be played by an Indian. It was a genuine turn off for people and as much as I'd like to see someone like Jay Tavre play Tonto, Depp is still the better casting choice. And did the American Indian voice, look, and essence so well. Also, the crow thing: it somehow became a big deal because it was different. Even with historical evidence of medicine men wearing birds like that, people couldn't get over it and judged it as a bad film because Depp was so clearly hamming it up. Turns out, not only is there the historical evidence, it is also a strongly motivated character piece and something that worked VERY well in the film's world.

If people don't go see a movie, it really has nothing to do with it being a bad movie.... 

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SEE IT. And box office bombs are judged as such well before word of mouth has a chance to spread. Not enough people saw this opening weekend to kill the film by the time it did through word of mouth.

But what DOES kill a movie in the second weekend, every time? The critics, and the box office numbers. For some reason, audiences (who weren't excited about it in opening weekend) will read box office numbers from the first weekend like a score card, and judge the movie by that. Reviews of the film won't always keep people away, but when you add that to "no one saw the movie opening weekend" ... they tend to believe it's not worth their time.

It's very strange, this idea: "Well if no one saw it, I'm not going either." Or the fact that a movie will be advertised on TV with a preview and "The number one movie of the weekend" and it be based on the fact that everyone has seen it. And that ACTUALLY influences people to go to the film.

You want to see a terrible summer blockbuster? Go rent Battleship. I stopped talking to a girl after she texted "I saw Battleship yesterday, it was the best movie I've seen this year". You want to see a terribly acted, written, and directed film that people showed up for? See a real trainwreck, Transformers 3.

Here's a good review of The Lone Ranger, since they are so few and far between: http://okc.net/2013/07/09/review-lone-ranger/

Review: One in the Chamber

Probably straight to DVD. And with good reason.

Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Dolf Lundren are assassins, and if that's not a great idea for a B-Movie then I don't know what is. And here's my real problem: Lundren brings his best performance since Rocky IV except that he has lines. So I'll call it the best I've seen of him. And Cuba, he's magnificent in this. He brings absolutely ZERO amount of his usual "on-the-verge-of-crying schtick". He is a haunted and deadpan cold assassin playing both sides of a Russian mafia war.

The problem here is Lundren is handled like a joke, and Gooding is handled like he's going to be up for an Oscar. The direction seems to be phoned in by two separate people that don't communicate.

I'm wondering if it was directed by a married couple. 

Lundren's action sequences are terrible, one opposer at a time type fights and gunplay. Cuba has to deliver some really cheesy over the top dialogue. The final sequence has Cuba taking the reigns on terrible stage direction and shooting up a club before the last badguy walks out with a girl Cuba has been protecting and says, "Enough! You are going to die. The question is, will she die with you."

And it actually takes 3 "Enough!"'s to get Cuba to turn around and find where the badguy is standing. Why this guy wouldn't just shoot Cuba in the head is beyond me... or rather beyond the married couple directing the movie. Clearly the wife wanted to see the emotional interplay of a damsel in distress and her protector (a smart, clever, cold deadon marksman) make the decision to drop his weapon. And the husband wanted the first part of the sequence where Cuba takes out an entire club of badguys without getting shot and without missing a single mark.

I do have to say, I really appreciate whichever one directed Dolf and Cuba's scenes together. There was  a real sense of weight of the battles the two had seen between the two.

This movie has a lot going for it and is worth a watch. But you'll ultimately be disappointed there wasn't more of the stuff you liked and how many little moments didn't make sense to the point you were dragged out of the story.

Collaborative Scheduling Tools for Free - Google Calendar

Keep your film's schedule on Google docs and you can do all sorts of fun things with it. Share the calendar with your cast and crew and they can set up notifications for scheduling changes. Set your AD up with text reminders for 10 minutes before each schedule break and keep the whole crew together! Tie in Google docs, and Google Maps and suddenly you have a dynamic producer's suite. Here's what our Agenda looks like:

(the calendar shows in realtime so scan to Sunday March 27th, 2011. Then click on the call time for 10am - notice the link to the map? That's our production locations so everyone can get specific directions from where they are and where everyone will be. Plus more features are included with the maps such as pictures. You could load in location scouting photos or even set photos for promotional use later.)



More to come with specific tutorials.

"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.