Fine Tuning Movie

I’m fine tuning my edit now. It’s somewhat of a grind to re-watch a rough and see where you can trim. I shot so conservatively, the choices are limited. I think the trick is to NOT watch your rough cut so much as to be married to the tempo of the film, so you can’t see it any other way. Going into a fine cut has its own landmines. Mostly since if you shave a few frames here, it will change the tempo of the film later. It’s a weird balance. I’ve gotten the warning of “killing your babies.” Basically it’s watching the movie SO subjectively, it entails cutting out shots that may’ve taken a lot of time to do, or cost a lot of money to get. If it doesn’t work for the movie, it’s a painful decision. Since I live with the project for so long, the feeling is muddled in a lot. Extending a movie to make it feel like a bigger emotional moment isn’t the solution. Making the payoff make sense to the set up is. This is REALLY hard to do in a short (probably much more in a feature). There can be nothing of fat in a movie. But you also need healthy fat (yes, I made this up). Healthy fat in a movie is breathing room. You can’t just cut from here to there back to here because you feel it speeds the movie up. People will watch a three hour movie if it’s interesting. No, the trick is to know where to shave. The money is on superfluous dialogue. But even that has landmines. Cutting out vital character phrases can jeopardize your pace. Pacing is GOD. God likes to be liked. Watching it with others through their eyes is nice as well. It gets you to see where it starts to lag. Watching it with the colorist was fascinating. There is a moment in the movie that does lag, but it has less to do with the dialogue, since we still get the gist through expression. I think that’s what a lot of critique lately has become. And maybe, if I filter out what people are really saying, it’s that the dialogue is inconsequential to what we are seeing. I consider this a win, since those who chose to listen get a few zingers. Those who don’t still get the structure.

As a side track….

You know sorta’ bums me out, is when stories in life outshines my interest in my own movies. I’m not sure how feature guys do it. They have to be REALLY interested in their project to live with it for so long. It’s so easy to get distracted by so many things in life. Whenever I watch a movie, and if it’s good, it’s near impossible for me to watch anything I’m making. Because I get this overwhelming thought that this is the end game to where I want to be. To make a great project that speaks to people. I get distracted. I think I have to make a movie as fast as I can for that reason. To live with something for so long can make you batty. A feature is much worse.  I think. Because you have to make it not for yourself, but for a bigger audience. And pray that it makes money.

I should’ve snuck into a movie I worked on and see the audience reaction. I went to “Jurassic World” but I don’t think that counts. It should be a project where I actually made decisions. It would’ve been cool to have gone to Korea to see that Steven Seagal movie I shot. It didn’t make a lot of money, but in Korean terms it was a success. It would be interesting to hear their reaction to the everything. Good or bad. Though, in most Asian countries, you really can’t tell if they enjoy it or not. They’re quiet. I’d want to see a movie like that in Compton or something. That would be great. For two reasons. Black audiences don’t suffer fools. Watch “Night At The Apollo” and you know how ruthless it can be. Most of the time I have no idea what I’m seeing is good or bad, but that audience knows. The second is, if they like something, they REALLY let you know. As much as they don’t suffer fools, they get bad movies. I’ve overheard conversations in grocery store check out lines where people would regale the other with scenes from “Ride Along.” I would just like to see a movie to an audience that responds to something you’ve done. The closest was my student thesis project, where it was wall to wall people. Because the people in that audience worked on it in some way. Or know someone who worked on it. It’s very uncomfortable, but you can tell what works and what doesn’t. When a movie derails, it’s REALLY uncomfortable. There’s always a professor who doesn’t mince words. To be honest, most of those professors were total losers anyway, who couldn’t cut Hollywood. But, whatever.

One time I saw Jerry Bruckheimer try to sneak into his own movie. I think even he is curious how people like his movies. That’s a guy who cares.

The Dentist Who Killed A Cat

Walter James Palmer, an American who shot and killed a beloved lion, was also a dentist.
First off, fuck dentist. They overcharge for the dumbest shit. And most likely teabag your dumbass while you're out. Not Palmer, just...I've heard stories. Guy a know. Some guy in Canada, okay?!

This asshole paid $50,000 to kill a lion on safari. Which by the way, said dickhead isn't really hunting. Hunting is if they have the potential to kill you too. All you're doing is hiding like a bitch.

Second thing, fuck all you idiots who are posting his address. Really Mia Farrow? Get a fucking life. Probably a reason why you were dumped by Woody Allen. WOODY ALLEN! You may as well been dropped by Gonzo from the Muppets.

My point being, outrage is fine. But, people are taking it way too far. Focus on your own shit and make it better. Rich old ladies who do this shit, and middle aged bored idiots...a waste.

I'll make this a short one, since I hate everyone in this scenario.

Getting Uppity With The Police

I was recently pulled over by the police in Encino for A) having a tail light that was out B) my driver's license didn't have my correct address.

They issued me a citation, but not before fucking with me a little bit.
The first cop was polite and upfront about why they stopped me. It took about 10 minutes for them to check my plates, any warrants and anything else. It seemed they dug deep. Being on the side of the road with cops is demoralizing and embarrassing. These two love this shit. To be in power is a high that people who have none in real life will never get.

So, the other cop had his thumbs clipped to his belt, on the ready. Boy, he stared at me like he wanted me to do something. My first reaction was "don't you guy have anything better to do, like solve the person who killed O.J.'s wife?

In my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, a man was killed by a cop over a routine traffic stop investigating a front license plate infraction. In the video, the cop pulls the man over, by the name of Samuel DuBose. He is asked for license. Which he can't produce. At this point, I think the cop should've issued a citation and let it go. Even upon checking the information, you'd see over  decade of traffic violations. The man was on his way to pick up his son to go see a movie. I think, this may've been a factor as to not having his car impounded. The officer asked DuBose to step out of the car, then from what I saw, DuBose refused, THEN put his hand on the door, started up the vehicle and attempted to flee. Which is when the cop pulled out a gun and shot DuBose right in the head. He died.

Now, back in the wild west, this would've been met with some lookie-loos and back to the saloon. Nowadays, police body cam, internet and all sorts of other electronic devices make it so we're all legal eagles.

I don't know if any of this is legal. And I took criminal justice. Only that there is a world where white cops and black people don't mix. According to the internet stories that they present. What saddens me about the whole ordeal, is that it happened in my hometown. Where intolerance has been an issue for so long. I have my own prejudices based on childhood trauma, but that's something I cannot translate to people today. I often try to find the humor in it now. But it was truly senseless. On both the participants. I know I've been shouted by both sides about how I could defend a cop over this or how can I defend DuBose over this and so forth. This incident is just that...a moment captured FOREVER. Lives are changed permanently. The gravity of that statement is what's on the table NOW. I can only say that this doesn't seem to translate to a cop who is quick to pull a weapon. Nor on the criminal quick to be defensive. This is why it draws so much attention because, for the most part, the grey area is no longer preferred. The police officer has been charged with murder. The prosecutor took even a more pre-emptive "please don't burn our city down" stance that the cop was not in the right to do something (by the book) was legal (front license is "chicken crap"). Please relate this to the police officers of Encino. No one wins here. Whatever opinion you have, there is one dead man, and another who may as well be.

Trump As President - Meh.

I've no idea this was possible. I wouldn't figure a guy who is so opinionated about so many things could gain popularity. And people actually listen to the dude.

I think it's because he is so convinced of his opinion. I don't know what Trump stands for or what his solutions are, but it's funny how many feathers he ruffles just by spreading his name around. Do people like him? Yes. Very specific people, it seems. And people in the shadows as well. He seems to be the type of person someone can like, but not admit in public you like him. He is pretty raw in his statements. Kooky in beliefs. But...I guess his appeal is that we're all sick of the bullshitters in politician. He may be _______ (enter your critical label here) but man!...is he committed to his statements.

I think there is something to be said about that. I feel his novelty will wear down. And whether or not he actually has plans to make America better is for the public to decide. I've frequently shared my lost of faith of American people as a whole. But as individuals, we're pretty cool people, when we want to be. Two former bodybuilders were Governors, because we're convinced they may be able to crush the fiscal giant that looms over our village. Maybe hit it with a folding chair. At least do something.

Marketing & Poster Art

Part of making movies is also knowing how you want to be marketed. That means posters. When I made my first movie, I knew it was going to be shown in a theater. The Lillian And Dorothy Gish Theater in Bowling Green,  Ohio to be specific. I had to come up with a poster. It was for a movie called “A Nail In The Board.” Shot on B&W 16mm film. And projected on film as well. Man, did I have brass nuts then. Today, I’d cringe at that college kid who made a backyard movie. It was a really cool screening ‘cause all my friends from high school showed up. And also the town of Bowling Green, as any mention of a local movie being shot there brought out everyone. Man, so far that moment trumps everything I’ve since done. Truthfully.

Anyhow, I had to make a poster and put it around campus. I used an early version of Photoshop. Strange how this is around 1998 and it seems so long ago. I’ve lived four lives since. And recall putting a little thumbnail image of a bicycle I’d taken in photo class on the front of the poster. Left a LOT of white space and added the text. Basically used the only fonts they had back then. Impact…I guess, is…impact-ful. And I cut and pasted everything else, until it looked like the posters we had at the video store I worked at. It was serviceable. And I made a ton of copies at school and posted them everywhere. You wanna know about moxie. I posted this EVERYWHERE. I was also co-sponsored by the fraternities and the panhellenic council. I remember giving an impassioned speech as to why they should give me money to make a movie. I think I got about $2,000 collectively from both. This was way before Kickstarter or Indiegogo. I had to stand in front of hot sorority girls with my acne busted out face and beg for money and pitch them my movie idea. I guess they felt sorry for me. But whatever, I got the money. And a few of them even attended the screening.

I have a few friends who’ve made movies now. To be honest, their posters are pretty bad. I’m not sure why they just don’t steal a poster idea from one they’ve already seen. I had a really close friend in school who came out to L.A. with me who worked for a marketing company that made trailers and posters for movies. They had to put together (at least) 100 ideas. Half of those would actually be made into card samples. Meaning printed out and place on cardboard and placed around the office. EVERY combination of the title, a few images, the credits and so forth as a layout. So that it could be whittled down to three. Then they would have to settle on ONE poster. Now, as independent filmmakers, this is a total fucking grind. Coming up with one concept is hard, having to dig up ten is hard, a hundred is insurmountable. And why would you want to waste your time on that shit either? The answer…because our posters look like shit. Yes, it takes some serious thought to put together a poster campaign that looks professional. You want to know how shitty it is? When a company has a breakthrough with a trend, EVERY movie marketing firm leaps at it. Writing of text on people’s faces became big. As it just a tease of a word. Or not having the title of your movie but just a symbol. “Jurassic World” was like that. Like you could mistake that movie. It’s insane the lengths people go for poster art. Back in my day, this shit was stolen art. Bus stops and shit would be taken. It was that coveted. Now, we’re way too cool for school. I feel like we collected a lot of shit back in the day.

I had my “Terminator 2” poster framed. It was, for the longest time, my prized possession and still hangs on my bedroom wall in the house I grew up in. I looked at that thing. Studied it, in between crying about how girls didn’t like me. It is beautiful art. I memorized every name on it. I think people forget it’s art. And it’s really hard to do well. As I really suck at it now. I often scratch my head, how I lost that moxie I had back then.

Cheap Ways To Make Your Movie Interesting

It’s really bizarre that people think the more money you have, the better your movie will be. This is really bad thinking. There are things that will make your movie look more expensive. For instance, visual FX, if the story requires it. Or more expensive camera gear. But big time professional cameras or getting Industrial Light & Magic to do your FX isn’t going to guarantee you get a return for your movie. Nor does it make your movie any better. Even being able to afford bankable stars is no guarantee. Our competition is no longer theater patrons, but streaming as well. You tell a story through a small window, a bigger one isn’t that large a leap.

Movies often inflate their budgets to appear like they spent more. I’d say…the mid-sized movies more than likely spent a 1/3 of what they say they do. To pump up their numbers. The psychology behind that is that you won’t go to see a movie that has no money behind it, because you’ll more than likely be around people sitting around talking. Which, if you ever produce anything in L.A. even that could go above the tens of thousands of dollars. Movie money, as explained before is really funny.

There are things that sorta’ do put your movie into a different budgetary bracket. For instance, anything that requires stunts, or explosions. Yeah, that’s a lot of money. In insurance alone. So the balance is, making a movie that has SOME appeal, to not making it about two people sitting at a table talking.

I started to see this a lot. People make “talking heads” movies. Sit them at a table or computer and communicate like that. I have a co-worker that let me read a script he wanted to make. All of it took place at a computer screen. That is DEATH. It worked for the character study, since it is about a person who doesn’t venture outside her room. But…fuck is that boring. There really is not much you can do here. Because it’s all exposition. Mom talks to daughter, daughter to friend (through computer screen). I suggested he try to make it more “cinematic.” Two people can talk or move or whatever, but at least do it at a café. Forget that, because that costs money. EVEN if you have a friend who works at one, you still have to have insurance for them NOT to get sued. So that’s out of the question. How about near the beach or around the beach or something that makes the movie feel more “open?” It took me some time to figure this one out, but even the insinuation of something outside the walls of a room makes it feel bigger. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it’s because we live a lot of our lives looking at walls. We know what that looks like. Movies are suppose to move. To feel like there is a destination. Having people talk in a room IS the destination.

The other thing is that getting people outside walls also effects performances. In my short film I comically directed the lead as “pretend like you are in a van.” I laugh every time I think about that, because, well, he IS in a van. As silly as it seems, the more you move the more audiences move with you.

Something interesting I saw in the behind the scenes stuff of “Blade Runner.” In the scene, Deckard is attempting to find out if Rachel is a replicant (android/robot/whatever). It’s in this cavernous space that Tyrell has meetings in. Director Ridley Scott suggested to the production that they have some type of shimmering moving light just playing on the actors. To which he was met with “What is the motivation of that light?” “What’s that coming from?” “Is it some type of atmospheric issue?” And so on. To which Ridley just wiggled his hands and said “just something just jittering like watery effect.” If you watch the movie, it’s in there. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AXOjlPF0Y


Why? No reason was given. Except, here’s why I think…it’s two people talking at a table. How boring is that? And it’s also an investigation where the words aren’t particularly interesting. It’s a simple Q&A. There is humor in it, but…Ridley had the instinct to know it still needed a moving effect of some kind. The audience may question it. Or just chalk it up to whatever this world that was created. Either way, FAR more interesting than blank, flat wash. Now I’m not suggesting you do that for your movie. Since this was sci-fi, it made sense. Yours may not.

Another example is the interrogation to “Basic Instinct.” Crotch shot aside, watch how the camera whip pans and quick dollies into characters. Which was essentially another Q&A moment. While it may not be as boring as “Blade Runner” could’ve been, since Sharon Stone is sexy and infinitely watchable in her frosty fuck doll persona, it still is I ask, you answer.

These little things cost very little money to make your movie much more interesting. In a strange way, the small things in movies do make it feel bigger than sometimes expensive FX.

I think it’s why I love road movies so much. The movie constantly moves, and at any point, you could just hole up at some hotel and have something crazy happen. It still has the potential to just keep moving. Check out a movie like “Something Wild” to really see how it can be done right. Or “Midnight Run.” This movie is amazing, in that everything fits perfectly to the end.

I Lit The Bathroom In "Saw" - Yeah, right.

If you got into the movie business to get recognition in anything...forget it. I guess, unless you're an actor. But even then...it's "you know...what's his name?" For the longest time I couldn't remember that one actor in that one movie. It hit me in the middle of the night, Stellan Skarsgard. Which could be more of a tribute to his talent, then his face.

Usually, when I run into people who work in the movie business. I tell them the high profiled named movies I've worked on, because it's dumb to mention the crap that no one's heard of. It makes it really uncomfortable too. When people do ask, it goes something like this (in my earlier days):

Random film industry person (RFIP): Oh hey man.
Me: yo.
RFIP: What do you do?
Me (at the time): I do electric work
RFIP: Oh?
Me: Yep.
RFIP: What movie?
Me: Like "Saw"
RFIP: Like "Saw" the horror movie, I saw that (heh-heh).
Me: Cool, yeah, I lit that bathroom.
RFIP: Oh, you were there?
Me: Yeah.
RFIP: So you ran electric on it?
Me: No. The bathroom, that was my design. I lit that bathroom. It was a blanket wash of fluorescent light. They had to shoot in every direction.
RFIP: So you turned on a light.
Me: I rigged the light banks above the soundstage. Told them this is the most efficient way to go.
RFIP: How do you get to do something like that?
Me: I was friends with the best boy electric from film school. He use to be my gaffer on student films.
RFIP: That's cool.

It's not. In their brains, I'm still basically the craft services person. In fact, more than likely, lower than them. Because if you're not directing, you're the "rest of us." Stupid, I know. But human. It also seems to be a testament to how we view ourselves too. Like, someone supposedly high up on the food chain would never slum to talk to the pleebs. Probably more accurately, and humorously, if you're speaking to them, they like to remind you how you are no better than them. East coasters love this.

Little do we all realize how close the most experienced person is to being a job below the radar, even on a financial level. I recall the director of photography made less than me on that job (if we're going per day). Why? Because there is no electric person's reel. He did it for peanuts to get something on his reel. Me? It's a job.

I have a friend who thought I worked at Panavision, even though I repeated told her I worked in post production. Very little of the people I supposedly know know what I actually do. My guess, they couldn't care less. Those who've worked in the movie industry, ask the people in your lives what they think you do at work. I think you'd be surprised. That's the business people.

Contingency Plan

Making movies is a tough run. Yeah, I know. I’ve bitched about it constantly. But it’s a lot of moving pieces all at once. A whole new beast when things are not within your control. So far, I’ve stressed over my last two projects. In terms of just pushing the army across the land. But my army isn’t a battalion. It’s a platoon. And we move quick (relatively). And rarely do we hesitate for certain things. This is stressful. I don’t fully understand if and when things may derail. But you have to be prepared for those contingencies.

Contingencies entail being somewhat calm when you make a decision. The more experience you have, the more you (at least) appear calm. Things go weird fast. If things don’t work. Or talent isn’t getting what you want, they can go south fast. I remember this short film I wanted to shoot in Indiana.

There is a small town in Indiana called Fairmount. It’s where James Dean was born. I had it in my mind that this girl that I’d been hanging out with was going to be in it. I’d come back from college. Her name is Holly.

Holly was a really pretty blonde. And let’s be frank, I just wanted her to like me. I’d dug up a Bolex from the t.v. station in college. It’d been abandoned (and looking back, these assholes at my university probably trashed them). It was a great little camera. I bought some film in mail order. Now remember, we’re talking at a time when the internet didn’t exist. Anyway, I had two rolls of 16mm film. Fairmount was about two hours away from Cincinnati. It was a road trip I took many people. It changes people. Not sure why, other than I think it’s more the company and not the journey. I took Holly with me. For whatever reason, this trip was different. I was really exhausted for some reason and when we reached town, we stopped off at the grocery store to get provisions (water and snacks). I love the town. It’s small and people are really friendly. Even for a white girl and an Asian guy, we must’ve looked bizarre. But since James Dean was their prodigal son, I’m sure they expected and received weirder combinations. Midway through, I just got a sinking feeling. As I looked through the lens, Holly was just dead. Not dead as in not alive, but dead as in…flat. There was no dialogue, but just looking through the lens, I saw just fear. I hadn’t auditioned this role. And she sure as shit never acted in anything. She was just a high school classmate I thought was pretty. It was excruciating to come to this conclusion after two hours of driving out to the middle of nowhere.

I cranked the camera and shot as much as I could. We got to James Dean’s grave. And shot a scene where she just laid next to the headstone. Again…flat. Something about her face, I just couldn’t…love. That crush I had for her just didn’t translate in camera. I can’t put that into words other than…she wasn’t comfortable. We wrapped. Got into my VW and headed back to Cincinnati. I didn’t say much to her. And she could sense my discomfort. She tried her best to make conversation, while I shut her out, and down. Looking back, this was a cruel stupid thing for me to do. But at that moment, I was focused on how much time and energy I felt wasted on something I didn’t feel would work.

I got the footage back and couldn’t bring myself to edit it. This was also at a time when shooting film, you had to get a workprint, which was a print from the negative shot. I did look through it on a projector. And my heart sank. All that effort with nothing to show for it.

Holly and I never spoke to each other again. It was my fault completely. I am certain to this day, had I showed up with the grit I have today, it may’ve been something special. The footage is somewhere at my parents’ place. They don’t throw anything away. Those moments creep into my psyche every time I work with someone new. It hasn’t changed either. I don’t really audition like other people do. I just meet the person and feel if they would be right or not. I know this is probably the wrong way to go about it. But it’s more important we get along than anything. I think actresses are harder to cast, because you have to really love the person on camera. And it’s nothing that can be trained. It’s just who they are. Otherwise the audience doesn’t care. I think they know this. It’s a vulnerable place to be. And I see the strength and trust it takes for them to be this in front of the camera I operate. Some people make it look so easy. It’s no wonder we have such a fascination in people who can do this.

What Type Of Films Do You Want To Make?

A co-worker asked me this this morning. What type of movie do I like making? I’m not sure. When I was in film school, my biggest influences were really big action movies. “Die Hard” & “Lethal Weapon” come to mind. Where I am now, something about those movies no longer have the appeal they once did. I think because they seem to be a little hollow once you are finish with them. By “hollow” I mean, they are really fun and a nice diversion, but they don’t solve a universal truth. I still love action movies. They’re great fun. But it’s a genre I’m not sure I would ever fully be good at. Quentin Tarantino, while violent and bloody in his movies, don’t really make action movies. He seems to make melodrama. It just happens to have action in them. I suppose most detective/cop stories are melodrama. But his is steeped in “tough guy” dialogue. I use to love one-liners. But those, if done wrong, are really corny. I remember when “Die Hard” came out. Every action movie from that point on had on-liners. It got to a point where they had to address the characters talking like they do. Like in “The Last Boy Scout” Damon Wayans says “this is the part where you rescue me.” Like, they know they are in a movie. “The Last Action Hero” fully addresses this phenomenon. The movie is long and silly, but is often overlooked for the value. Originally it was suppose to be a hard “R” movie. Meaning lots of violence and nudity. Somewhere along the way (probably past the 100 million budget mark) the producers got scared and started to shave off the good parts to accommodate a “PG-13” rating. Thus starting with one movie and ending up with another. That is obviously a mess.

Ultimately, the idea is to determine a specific movie you like to make. For me, maybe the human condition. Director John Sayles has always been an influence.  His ability to blend truth with plot is astounding. And he has no specifics he adheres to. I mean, the guy made a baseball movie (“Eight Men Out”), a coal miners union story (“Matewan”), and a female bonding story “Passion Fish”. The guy is really underrated in who we think the best 20^th century directors were. I think the closest we have now is someone like Paul Thomas Anderson. He goes from “Boogie Nights” to “The Master.” He is even-handed and mature. For the most part, I am not that big of a fan of the actual stories, but the from the stand point of digging great performances from the script, it’s mind boggling.  It’s so weird how when I was younger I found movies like these boring. Could it be that I’m growing up? I want to believe that maybe the concept that reality is stranger than fiction has more merit. I mean, I wouldn’t go as far as making moving poetry like Terence Malick. That stuff is really inaccessible oddball stuff. Maybe that he gets away with the lingering camera has its own awe. 

My Mom's Convinced

On the rare occasions I come home, my Mom is convinced I like her pan fried steak.
It's the most god-awful thing I've tasted. It taste rubbery and...well, like it was still grazing in a field somewhere. I have to drench it in soy sauce for it to taste like anything too. She trims the fat and then fries the whole thing. She doesn't know how to cook a steak. But she tries.

But it's not good enough.

So I remind her that I am perfectly fine not having her steak. To which she replies "Oh no, you love steak."

Yeah, I think to myself, I do...just not the way she makes it. And I have to have this argument about maybe she is talking about either of my sisters who've expressed their appreciation of her steak. To which she considers for a little. Searches her memory, and again believes I am the one who loves the steak she makes.

Why would I lie, Mom? Why would I tell you that I don't like the steak you make? I just shrug and chew through it, since there's nothing else in the house. I quietly fume, and chew. Chew and fume.

I truly believe she does this so I never ask her to make anything to eat ever...so she can disappear into her Chinese soap operas. I will miss these days.

Rite Of Passage

I can’t wait till autumn. Not sure why I dislike Summer so much. I think because it’s hot. Being from a tropical land, it’s weird I’d dislike it so, but autumn has the colors and the smells. Also football.

I think this year, I may drop by the local high school and watch a game or two. Locally, Sherman Oaks has school called Notre Dame that I constantly see recruits in Rivals. That school is in the middle of a rich area. Although it doesn’t look it, since it’s traffic out the ass. In Cincinnati, the rich are are separated by acreage of land and wooded areas with barely any traffic. The rich like not having to deal with the rest of us. In Los Angeles, the best they can do is to put up fences. Or, if you’re in Brentwood, big fences. Basically you have to build your own compound. I recall the houses in the rich area of Cincy being pushed really far from the main street, with a massive lawn, a classic luxury vehicle and space. Here they rather look inauspicious from passing eyes. Rather, a single door would lead you to an opening which would lead you to their compound.

I actually live in what was once a compound. Jane Russell, the big breasted B-movie chick of the 50’s owned this area. She was also in a movie with Marilyn Monroe. I guess back then there was no one here. She built walls. Specifically for her horses. And a chapel that use to be the center of this place. It’s got three pools. A nice quiet area you’d never know existed, because outside was the barrio. There’s even a turkey that walks the grounds around here. Though I haven’t seen him recently. It’s an odd place. I usually sit by the pool next to the main house to write. It seems like something they would’ve done back in the 50’s. Have high tea and chat about movies or whatever. I imagine Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford and Buster Keaton just hanging around talking or playing cards. Or playing on the nearby tennis court. To me, it seemed the people from the 1930’s were already in convalescence. It seems the rich back then enjoyed the down time when they could. Nowadays, they barely look at the trappings that come with their earnings. It’s usually the family that gets to lounge whilst the breadwinners toil and stress outside. Personally…I’ve always chosen to be in the trenches then be at the canteen. It’s not for any noble cause but to stave my brain from boredom. Now that I don’t booze anymore, the idle mind doesn’t rest. It moves at a pace that I have to keep up with. Given the time to think, I still feel I need to do things. I fidget a lot these days. This could be also from the coffee I ingest. Or I smoke cigars now. Which…I’m not sure how I picked up this habit. I think just sometimes having it really fills the lulls in conversation. Or makes me seem smarter or something. I dunno. Smoke seems to jog my mind. Or I’m associating it with smoking a cigar. It is a comforting scent. I know the cigar place I use to frequent would have stressed out lawyers from Van Nuys Courthouse. Hypertension, ruddy day drinkers. These guys had terrible diets. And hid from their family at this smoke venue. There is something sorta traditional about it though. Like a rite of passage between men.

There's No Cryin' In Movies

I hate to see crying in movies. It never really rings true.  But a lot of actors are very proud they can cry on cue. Since film school, I’ve seen many people who’ve auditioned turn on the water works, for which I’m impressed at the skill. But is corny. Call me an insensitive clod, but silent stoic bravery I think rings more honest to me. Is it an Asian thing? I’m not sure.

The ones that really do ring true is if they manipulate it to be a hard indifference. Then the character breaks down. In “Saving Private Ryan” for instance, Tom Hanks’ character portrays toughness under fire. His hands shake after D-Day but he’ll never let his group know how much it affects him. We think he’s a lifer in the military. Turns out he’s like one of them. And when his team starts to get killed. He reaches a breaking point where he disappears away from the crew and just lets it go. But he doesn’t weep like a bitch. He still maintains it in silence, so much so it shakes his core. We feel it for sure. To me, there are two types I think people really rally behind. 1) the guy who is ridiculously skilled in his trade but has flaws 2) a guy who exhibits decision making even though he knows the risks will mean his life or others but still takes the harder one.

I always like the guy who is defiant to the end. I’ve got this story a friend is pounding out now about that. People who face adversity to the bitter end, fascinate me. While others run or sidestep bad events, these people are actively putting themselves in harm’s way.

An example would be a movie like “To Live” directed by Zhang Yimou. It tells an epic story of the life of a man who loses everything in life through bad decisions and some with bad luck, is determined to keep living. The bottom line being that life is going to have awful tragedy. Most of the time it happens despite anything you do. You can ball up and die or keep moving forward. Good fortune could be bad fortune in disguise. Resiliency is an admirable quality. Which is why I think crying in movies tend to feel phony. Yes, it happens. A lot most likely. Maybe what I’m getting at is that a lot of times when people cry in movies, it should probably take more than one event. The breaking point is raised, I think if you want to attempt this. It should take a lot, where the audience always believes the next bad moment will make the person crack. But it doesn’t. I think when it pours out of the person despite themselves, is when it really feels the most honest.

Moving Forward

I'm already working on my next project. A few ideas came to mind previous of shooting "Nick's Van." It's better that I should keep my mind busy, and fine tune this one while writing the next. This way, I can fast track into something else without that depressing lull. I think a lot of working directors do that. They have back to back projects to keep that sinking finished feeling at bay. I'm not finished with this short yet, so I still have a way to go. But I'm happy how far I gotten. In fact, someone mentioned that a rough cut in a week (on film) is a bit insane. Some people who've shot digital have sat on footage for 5 months. It may be because it came too easy for them. Or quick.

Stupid comparison, but I think it's like World War 2 veterans versus Vietnam War veterans. A lot of the WW2 guys had time to detox from the brutality of war on the boat back. The Vietnam vets probably experienced shock when they went from war straight into civilization. Most live in that...feeling they want to be back there. Whilst the WW2 veterans make do with what they can live with. Tough hombres.

I think when you do shoot digitally, the gratification may already be watching the playback on set. So many people already have eyeballs on it. When you shoot film, there's so very little exposure to any of the footage. Here and there you get a sense of what is in front of you. But when people get to see the final, there is an anticipation that doesn't exist when everyone already has made a decision on set. Some even have the scene edited before the day is done. I don't like that in the least. I understand the economics of why, but I'll never agree this is the better way.

Showing The Rough Cut

This can be nerve wracking since the sounds sucks and there are no visual effects (if you had any). Back in the old days, some really picky directors would never show a rough unless there was sound mixed, and picture close to lock. People respond to odd sound issues, or edit points (color correction) despite what they are told to ignore. Can you get the story?

The most famous one was having Alan Ladd Jr. screen "Star Wars" to the suits, to which even without effects they were hit with the fact that they had a real movie. They scrambled to market it. Rest is history.

An interesting preview screening one was with "Gone With The Wind" They took a rough print to some small theater in the valley. To which the audience was told they were going to watch one movie. But then, were announced they were there to preview a movie.

When Margaret Mitchell's name came up, the audience went into a frenzy. Everyone had heard "Gone With The Wind" was in the works, but also all the insanity that went with it. They hit gold in thar' hills.

So I showed my rough to my friend Jared. Who is also coloring the project. He was impressed. Not only impressed, he went to say "everything that shouldn't work...somehow does." This is a glowing review as far as I'm concern. Why? It tells me that through bad edits, bad sound, bad lighting and so forth...it is still a story where people do...do something. Are they compelling, interesting characters? In a short format, it's near impossible to flesh that out. But I think you know enough. And as I watched it through his eyes, I felt every problem or issue or whatever. Jared's one of those dudes who can be brutally honest. Especially to me. Let me rephrase that...perhaps some people just don't feel a filter does anyone any good. So it meant a lot that he saw what we were doing. And even more so that seeing the final potential, I saw a spark of being proud of his work and getting that motivation to make it the best we can. Sometimes it backfires. Sometimes when you show your movie, you lose a lot of motivation. Because you see what you can't save. This is the worst feeling ever. When you just have to throw your hands up and admit defeat. I'll be honest, I was scared shitless. Yeah, it's some private showing, and it's between us, but...the disaster factor is closer than people realize. A movie can implode on some dumb thing. Every moment is such a battle. A look, a phrasing, a false moment. It is that fragile. I guess when you're experience in making movies, you understand what does work and what doesn't. You know Orson Welles did mention that making movies is the best train set a boy could ever have. I kinda' understand that now. The craft is meticulous, and takes time to do right. Sometimes you will derail. But you keep building where you can. Fix the problems and move on. You have a plan, and sometimes those plans aren't fully realized, but you still get the experience.

Hollywood Advice Is Weird

When I first came out to Los Angeles to be in graduate school for film, my friend Ed came out here with me from Ohio. Ed and I would spend hours editing movies on a flatbed. Like, actual film editing. He always wanted to be the director/writer. I eventually had more aspirations to just be a cinematographer.

Ed had a family member out here, a very distant relative who worked at University of Southern California. The guy was in the film program, and Ed wanted to get his advice on how to break in. It took a while, but finally they met. To which this distant relative gave him one piece of advice “don’t smell.” Ed told me this, so I asked him to elaborate what he meant. Ed was frustrated. Had no idea what this meant. Don’t stink…meaning don’t screw up? Nope, just don’t physically stink. Like have body odor. He threw his hands up. People can be assholes.

Yesterday I came across an interview with a panel of working cinematographers. To which one was asked about advice. Guess what this guy said?

Yep…listen, do your best, and don’t smell, because you’re next to stars.

This must be some unspoken advice thrown out to young folk starting out in the business to throw them off. To me, this is shitbag behavior. I’m sure these two meant well, or being glib disarmed the situation. But, if I were the one starting out, this is the last thing I’d want to hear. Because it’s so fucking stupid. May the both of you get rectal warts. At least pretend to be empathetic to these kids. Say something like “man, no one knows, so the best thing you can do is do anything to get on set.” Or “I can’t tell you how long and hard this road is going to be. People are nutjobs and won’t give a shit where you are in life, whatever the situation.” You are being honest and you are giving them a way out. Bloody likely any of them would turn tail and run. That’s the benefits of youth. Feeling you can conquer the world.. As you get older, you’re just lucky the world hadn’t swallowed you up yet.

I suppose they meant well. To be fair, doling out the same “you won’t make it” speech does get old. This may be the only way around follow up questions. I can only believe it’s not just to be total dicks. And the young don’t listen anyway. Even as talented as they may be, there are tons of talented people in the world, and very few get the opportunity. The common sense of it all can drive many nuts. The people who do stay and find work, do crack a sense of the code. And maybe, just maybe this is that exclusive club people who work in the film business feel some privilege to be a part of.

These are things you really can’t explain to people who want to work in movies. My suggestion would be to do it anywhere else but Los Angeles. This place can turn a nice talented person into a jaded person who says things like “Don’t smell.”

There is an intern now at our office that is 21 years old. Smart as fuck kid with an engineer brain. This kid…you can just tell smart folk. He retains a lot. And doesn’t suffer ramblings. I can tell his brain trims fat. He’s a go getter and knows the lingo. He throws out production terms clearly meant to prove to me he knows his way around production. The logic says he will be fine in making movies. The truth is, he will most likely be lost in the pack. Sorry, but the harsh truth is, be as quick and go-getter as you want, this will not open doors. Making contacts and having them like you for long periods of time will. This marathon isn’t what young folk like to hear. But it is the truth. A lot will be confused as to why they did everything right and still have not made even a small step forward. It’s because they haven’t hit the right combination of people who can tolerate them. The only solution is to be the person who needs to tolerate others and not to be the tolerant. If you stay put where you are and make great product, they will find you. Keep trying that way, no matter how trapped you feel in the small town. The only glamour in Hollywood, is that you can survive. The rest is all just a lot of smoke and mirrors. You’d be surprise that even the most consistent, live by the skin of their teeth. I would say you would be much happier and healthier, without this desperate type of living. HOWEVER, some would advise the opposite. As I have in the past (and still endorse, if you happen to be stubborn). Don’t give yourself a way out. The people who do actually “make it” tend to not have any other option in life. It’s do or die. Sounds dire and corny, but it’s real. Consider that even your most respected honored filmmakers still feel like they are at the second rung of a 12 step ladder. This is what drives them to do movie after movie. To stay relevant. A lot believe they have the chops to accomplish this. Very few do. I’m reminded of a friend whose roommate would bitterly lament about the industry (even though he was only 3 years in). These people are THE most annoying, since they seem to think that something is owed to them, and they have the pulse of why. Why they aren’t casted. Or why they are overlooked. Or how it works. While the rest of us plead ignorance while trying our damndest at…anything, this dude was focused on being miserable about his situation. To me, a complete stranger. It took me a lot of will power not to tell him to shut his entitled cry-baby fucking face. Because you aren’t in control of your destiny by whining. Or believing you know why.  No one knows why. My neighbor who use to be an assistant editor whines about how the industry had dumped him since it turned to younger, cheaper labor. I feel for the guy, because I think he had the personality and connections to move forward. But, the saddest thing…and I pray hard I never get here, is that he just stopped dead in his tracks. Never fully fighting back to do what he wanted to do. He just…stopped. And wondered. Yeah, it sucks when the world changes around you. Kicking and screaming into obscurity is one way to go (which, I’ve done). But, consider what the alternative may be. That actually could be anything.

So with that, I think anyone can do anything they want. Believe that you can. And do your best to get there. Stay upbeat if you can. It’s not easy for anyone. I hate to throw out some dumb phrase like “that’s life.” So I’ll say…”it’s your life.” In America the only obstacle is a defeated mind.

"Nick's Van" Teaser

Here's a teaser of my upcoming short:
"Nick's Van" (2015)

Van Stories

My friend Vince and I sat by the pool and conjured up a van story. To which we filmed.

A month later I ran into a friend who told me he was making a man living in his van story.

I will have to say...if I were to give any advice to this other van story, there are just a few bear traps I never considered. Making van stories conjures up A) rape B) murder C) abduction D) all the above. And you can't convince people otherwise, 'cause you'll sound rape-ier. Never mind in my story, I add in a prostitute. Haha. The perverts are going to lynch me. Cause this is a man's journey story. I know...dullsville for the raincoat crowd.

By the way, the people who are too young to get that reference, back in the day, you'd go to theaters to see your pornography. They'd wear raincoats to jerk off underneath. Kinda' weird if it's not raining. Total slush if it is.

So, do yourself a favor and side step the van stories if you can. Most likely you will constantly have to be defending the artistic merit of a guy who lives in a van and DOESN'T get rape-y.

The odd part about traveling with Vince in this van is...people who've lived this lifestyle are magnetically drawn it. It's weird. They have to stop and stare in respect. Most seem to look at it like Kane did to Rosebud. The last time these people were happy.

A Lesson In Eyeline

One of the most obvious yet, diabolically challenging but deceptively simple sequence to shoot are conversations in daylight while maintain orientation. Even big movies suffer this issue. The best way to describe it is to make sure people are facing each other when they are talking. People not looking at each other while talking is off-putting and weird. Done for effect (such as when Kubrick intentionally does it) it is cool. Mistakenly doing it, is bush league. I kick myself for being this far ahead of making movies and still stumbling on this.

The wrong effect is a guy faces on direction to speak to someone, then cuts away, then it cuts back to the guy…there’s a shift. You may not see it, but you feel it. It’s a crushing thing in editing when things are inverted with performances from one take, that don’t work with another. Frustrating to say the least. On thing you can do, is to flop the frame. Basically flip it to match the direction to which the actor is speaking towards. Unfortunately, I had him stand ¾ sideways wrong direction, and also, the sun would then also be on his wrong side. This IS something people will see.

Sometimes you can get away with it. For instance, Michael Bay has his actors constantly backlit. If you edit back and forth, it doesn’t appear too odd, but if you stop to think about it, that would mean there are two suns in that world. Movie magic for the sake of vanity is fine. Everyone can get aboard when actors look good.

Typically, productions tend to do one master wide shot to include to two people just to free you up to orientation. I hate using this crutch, because it always looks weird. A two shot is the dullest thing in the world. Unless you have great dialogue, it’s usually a boring frame. It also flattens out the cinema screen. We fake three dimensions. Two shots are reserved mostly for stage.

Anyway, I’m having issues now with matching looks. Unfortunately, I didn’t cover the entire scene with full takes. The beats are long, and I didn’t know how much more film we were going to burn through. Having a script supervisor may’ve been nice on this day. However, even on the feature I was shooting, my mind was so melted from the hours, I doubt her suggestions would’ve sound anything less than Charlie Brown’s teacher.

I’ve heard crazier stories about visual effects fixes that have NOTHING to do with the movie itself. On one movie, there were blemishes being removed, close up of actor’s crow’s feet removed (which, by the way, isn’t even someone you would consider vain). If I’d flip the actresses side of the screen and have her face the opposite direction, I’d also have to erase her shirt (as it has words on it). Crazy world, huh?

Anyway, it bothers me a little, but not enough to go nuts. The performances worked, so I’m good with that. I do lament about more technical stuff. Like had I had permits, and a bigger crew, I’d take the harsh sun off the actors and bring in a reflector. I regret more about not bringing in something to pop out and make it look better. I regret not having the lens filtration to knock down the grittiness of being two stops overexposed. Also, that I didn’t get a tighter close up so I could save the scenes. I frequently live a world of two movies. Happy with a lot of it, just gutted when it goes a little off.

But looking through this cut again, I am so very happy about the fact that there are workable moments. And now to fine tune, and give it to people to decide if these mistakes bother them. I think it’s the bigger picture that ultimately counts.

Rough Cut

My rough cuts are usually a rough assembly. Typical roughs don't have music. But I like to add it for pacing. It also feels better, to get the mood.

As per usual, the rough does have a sense of sadness to it. Everyone goes through it, because it's the first time you see everything strung out (as you are strung out). In a lot of cases, especially with a feature, the director doesn't sit in on editorial until it gets to a manageable state. Nowadays, they can review takes on set and decide if they should move on (in terms of performance). If you have the budget, you have time, and you can make the decision then. When you need to move fast, you move on, and have to deal with what you have. Also, some directors leave for a vacation after. They want the whole experience of production to leave them so they can approach it with a fresh perspective. I'm lucky in the sense that I have no one to answer to besides myself and the actors and crew. If there were investors, I'm sure I couldn't just tip toe through the daisies to get it right.

I should get perspective on it. I'm not sure if it works or not. Only that I made...something that begins, and ends. There are really great moments. But the ones that stand out now are the ones that grate on me. Eyelines, light, camera and sound. These things stick out because I think of things I have to fix already. Shouldn't be the case, but it is.

Here's the deal. Usually, I think I have a gauge on what I think works or doesn't. So far, some things work and others not. My last film, I was giddy that people would "get it." To which they did and they didn't. I brushed it off nicely. But was still proud of the project. For "Nick's Van" I know when things will work and others won't. It's hard to know what some people will take from it and others will dismiss. What I think will work, may fall flat. What may fall flat will draw a reaction. It's an odd thing.

I'm sure when Judd Apatow was watching "Trainwreck" he was with an editor to put the project together. The movie expands and contracts CONSTANTLY, until you're fed up with it. In a movie like "Trainwreck" you're not dealing with just a handful of people. You have to gauge real reaction. An audience testing is essential because getting a reaction from people is a group think. It's not individual. I can't sit in my dark room and know what an audience can think. I can think what they would think, but it's not guarantee. That's why in a lot of comedies, there is panic to go bigger. I am not making a comedy, so that's already off the table. But it still needs to play to people.

Recently when I went to "Jurassic World" I saw it with a massive crowd of kids. There are just obvious reaction beats in the movie to get the audience moving. Honestly, the movie isn't that great. From the standpoint of just something original or interesting. They're rehashing old stomping grounds. But I saw it surrounded by families. And BOY...did that make it fun. The screaming and laughing and jumps was what made the experience so good. "Nick's Van" isn't that movie. It was designed to be more like...a Hal Ashby movie. To which there aren't any screaming kids to tell you if you did it right. Onward!

A Short Break

Sitting poolside (to steal a term from my previous movie) after stringing out the second to last scene of “Nick’s Van.” Getting to the edge of the first rough cut.

You know, when people shoot film (film film), they seem to have projects that are very earnest. I don’t feel I fall into that category. I’m sorta’ more ragtag. When I see others who shoot on film, they have a more…polished, mature feel to them. They are very measured in terms of shot selection, mood and subject matter. Those who burn silver (the stuff film is made of) can’t be jackasses. They are gravely serious. And anyone who hears of this, believes these people aren’t fools.

I know one specific one now who made a movie about his grandparents who were coal miners. Beautiful, lyrical piece with outstanding even handedness. You can tell the people who made it were guided by an evolved art mind. It seems they also had a real budget, unlike my own wallet. This is no excuse, but rather I like hearing that people who shoot on film have money to do so. My budget was 1/30^th of what they already spent (according to their website). And what’s to become of this project afterwards that seems so bleak. As my one sister once put it she could put money into my movie, but what is the return on investment. How about my undying gratitude!? I digress…

Me…I think I’m punk rock. Get what we can get, when we get it. It’s splashy and retro. Clumsy, yet with a subject matter I think is less the polished feel of these other film projects. I feel this was a byproduct of being an enormous Tony Scott fan. That guy was the Warhol of his time, without the name recognition. His movies were daring. Bold in color and experimentation. Both with sound design and color. The guy pushed the visual medium to suit his material. Oftentimes he was criticized for style over substance. That’s fine.  His critics weren’t wrong. But he worked with a LOT of serious actors, because he was so passionate about the craft. I am NO Tony Scott, but I care very much about telling an interesting story. I’m actually trying to whittle down the moments now. Half the shit I do now, I want it to not be explosions or ridiculous reveals. I fear that the most.

“Nick’s Van” does have a reveal that…is a very scary tightrope. Because it can be corny and has potential of pissing people off. I’m actually at the last scene now, and unsure of what I have (haven’t synced up the audio to picture yet). I know I felt something. And because we shoot somewhat out of order, you may get a patchwork of bad edits that lead to a disjointed feel. Everything needs to flow from one thing to the next. I am convinced people will forgive my bad dialogue, they won’t forgive poor structure.

I think it is my rat brain that does this. I think it flows from page to page. But once on screen it just feels different. Feeling is what people leave the theater with, either glad they experience something or pissed that they’ve wasted their time.

I’m in a professional arena now. Yet sometimes I still feel like I’m still in amateur hour theater. It’s not just me beating myself up. I tend to have empathy for those who do things like this. The professional world does not. They don’t tolerate jackassery (yes, I’m making it a word). I hear the talk when production crews aren’t around in post. In big budgeted movies. “Look at that guy’s chin” “They better do something about the acne” “why are we working on this dumb project?” and so forth. Let’s not forget, most people in post-production are failed at something they’d rather do. Post-production (as I’ve described to our intern) was the soft dirt landing when they fall from a tree. I know most of my co-workers love I do this, but more happy if I fall on my face. It is human nature to despise other’s opportunities. I’m not sure why I don’t. I guess because it’s wasted energy. I have more things I want to accomplish than hate someone for doing something with themselves. I see that a lot in this business. Hell, there’s been stories Lucas and Coppola use to drive by each others’ houses and scream box office tallies.

I don’t mind failure. Again, I worry more about never trying. I like these challenges (I’m sure if I ever had investors they may’ve axed me a long time ago). It really staves off that uneasy feeling that I never did anything to be better in life. These quiet moments are a great reflection.

Universal truth is so very difficult to tap into. I mean there are simple things in plotting that move things along. For instance, chasing money is a very clear motive in movies. Or saving the world. Human dynamic is so slip shot since everyone grows up so differently. And since we all have a different type of sensibility. This interests me more than anything these days.

Pick Up Shots

No...it's not little jell-o vodka infused one-poppers *crickets*
These are the moments when you let everything settle, and then panic that you didn't get every shot you wanted in your movie.

I don't panic anymore, because...well, I own my own camera and accessories now. So, it is good and bad. Good, because I can just pick up my gear and go shoot. Bad, because I'm lazy as fuck. But...
HUGE but...
I have to weigh this on whether these missing shots will stab me in the side of the gut or not. In other words, can I live without them?

Technically, yes. Officially, in my heart, fuck no.

This is also the reason why a shot list would be helpful. Something I didn't anticipate. In fact, I drew my storyboards the day before I shot on the first day. I've actually gotten pretty good at my illustrations. Looking at the "Poolside" ones, it is pretty accurate to what we covered. On a bigger movie, yah...I should not be so lazy.

Oddly enough, very little if anything went amiss. In fact, everything is there to tell the story. To me, it's the bells and whistles that make a film in to a movie. Insert shots and b-roll cityscapes or whatever seem to bridge gaps between really odd edits. I was putting together a driving scene yesterday. I stressed hard about whether or not footage wouldn't be too jarring, as on one day we shot overcast, the next bright sunny day. I had a superfluous 2 shot that I used to do this with. An added bonus, there is a sound of a car or something that whizzed by. It was PERFECT for the transition, and sure enough, as a viewer, I know people will make that connection. I love it when shit like that happens. Because it saves both time and money. But there are things I still want to cover. This is just me wanting to make it a bigger movie.

I may even put together a teaser trailer...already found some music. Stay tuned...

Bye Bye Son

Whenever I sell an older camera I've had for a while, it feels like...sending a kid off into the world. I can imagine the emptiness it must feel to really send a child off. But recently I sold a camera that I had a duplicate version of. I bought it because it had a really rare function to it. But alas, I needed money to finish my movie. It didn't stop me from being a little choked up at the FedEx office as I waved it goodbye. The gear has served me well, and I can only hope the new owner treats it with respect that it deserves.

Moving Along On The Short Film

I've got a few scenes cut now...and to my surprise, things are working BETTER than what I'd expected. It's disjointed due to sound issues, but as far as performances go...I couldn't be happier. Most of you who do make movies, will understand when sound and picture are put together in sync, that's when you really see what you got, and what you didn't.

Maybe it was the heat last night, but as I was watching the first 6 minutes, I really got into it. There are beautiful nuances, that...given I was watching framing, eyeline, remembering t-stops and lighting, is diluted. But the moments were spot on. I mean, on in terms of what was written. There are some solid moments I think are going to play really well.

I think it's also a good sign when I can go over the same footage over and over and see different things. In the past, I've hurried through not to get a cringing feeling. But...this time, it was comforting to see all the parts play the way they did in the script. Good or bad (script wise anyway).

The point was to make a real feeling film. Yes, it's got a strange scenario, but I'm excited to see what else I've got. Picture and sound, my friends, picture and sound.

Residual Effects Of Filmmaking

On the last day of shooting my short film, I was on top of a hill and backing up with the 50 lbs. camera when I tripped over something metal stuck in the ground. Initial instinct was to save the camera. So I fell backwards. Unaware there may've been more metal around me. The camera's magazine knocked me in the head, and the weight to of the camera and magazine pinned me to a ground. Now, at one point in my life, I was able to bench press 200 lbs. For whatever reason, call it shock, this was too much. Finally another crewmember came over and took a bit of the weight off me. Enough to slide past it.

A week later, I feel what it actually did to me. I can't move my neck and it's hard to lift myself up from bed. At first I wondered if I was suffering from some bone deficient disease/injury. It took a co-worker to suggest that a fall like that, your adrenaline pumps added with the stress probably caused this to be more residual and upfront pain. So, a few weeks later the pain really presents itself. I think the same thing occurs when you go through a car accident. You don't really get the pain until your body powers down a little from the endorphins your body shoots out in order for it to brace itself. And it made sense.

I mean it makes more sense since it makes me feel better that it wasn't just so disease that I'll die from. It is massively painful though. But...such is art.

Glamour Of Hollywood

After the dust settles in shooting a movie, it’s on to post-production.

A lot of people LOVE post. Because they get to see it put together. Usually I want to jump out of a window from the 12^th floor, because I’m constantly lamenting about what we didn’t get. I really should be focused on what we DID get. But that’s not my style.

The adage is that everyone loves their dailies and hates their first edit. When you string it all together, that’s when people hate their movie again. It goes up and down throughout the rest of the movie until you can’t stand working on it anymore. Yep, you never finish your movie, you just throw up your hands (and throw up really) and let the world decide how to deal with your child.

When a movie works, you can kind of tell if it works or not. The pacing seems to move at a nice rate and all the information is there. If it doesn’t, you dread ever beat in your movie. When I first began editing my student films, I remember being just fascinated with how you can manipulate action by cutting within action. For instance, picking up a cup in one shot and putting it down in another space, after hours of relighting. Seems like the thoughts of a simpleton, but it really did fascinate me. I use to make backyard spec commercials with the neighborhood kids. Then show them at the school room televisions. People were impressed at the shorts I made. But they were dumb kid shit. We were just farting around. I do remember how I felt when a spot did work. It’s a cool feeling.

Anyway, I’m sure a lot of you guys have edited movies in some form or another. Like on Adobe Premiere, Avid or Final Cut. You sit there for hours going frame by frame, analyzing the performance of an actor or wanting to slit your wrist over some non-essential set piece that wasn’t removed from the set before shooting. Yeah, this drives some filmmakers nuts. Not me. I just tell myself that if your story sucks, then they look for shit like that. I’m also sure you have your own way of editing your projects. For me, I sit at my IKEA desk and scrub through footage in my undershirt and gym shorts. While drinking from a Gatorade bottle of frozen water. I sweat a lot, for some reason. Then eat when I can. Whatever leftover is in fridge.

I’ve been in some professional editorial bullpens. And it’s not that much different. You just have to deal with some serious body odor (what’s the logic of eating spicy food when you share space?). But, yeah, this is the shit most people don’t like to see on entertainment t.v. Because no one wants to see a fat slob roll a mouse back and forth for hours.

Editorial isn’t a bad way to get into directing. It really lets you see all the parts you need. More importantly what you don’t need.

Post Production Brain

I know how I’m going to open my short film. The first image popped into my head one day, and when inspiration strikes, it’s difficult not to jump on the idea. It was almost a domino effect, since I envisioned it almost immediately. Whether or not it plays is an entirely different beast. But, I can sense the pieces falling into place. As far as the footage I’ve seen. I know there are going to be some bumpy moments, but as long as I end the film on a high note…a hopeful one at least, people will go away having been okay with the story. That’s the goal, leave with a solid movie that people don’t feel so bad about. And NOT because I need to be audience pleaser, but because I feel story needs hope. Too many low budget flicks like to fuck with people in a somber way. Even the lifelong cynic Billy Wilder, with a brutal eye towards companionship did a “shut up and deal” heart tugger at the end of “The Apartment.” I guess that’s what I’m going for here.

Onward to post-production.

"Trainwreck" (2015)

If you like Amy Shumer, this movie is for you. Except for one thing…she doesn’t go as far as you think she will. And it feels like she was a little stifled when it came to the jokes. A lot feels forced. And having seen her standup, it’s not that far off. Which means, if you’ve never seen Schumer, this will be an interesting treat.

“Trainwreck” is about a city party girl who drinks hard, and fucks hard. She doesn’t care who she fucks, as long as she’s fucking. She was taught at a young age that people are to be used. And so she strips her emotions away completely. Until she has to face them directly. What is interesting about this movie, is that…as far as director Judd Apatow’s movies go…it feels like a complete movie. “40 Year Old Virgin” was a concept. “This Is 40” lingers WAY too long. The beats of a movie are here. Boy meets girl type. But what excels beyond the kitsch of…say something like “When Harry Met Sally…” is that it reveals some really harsh reality. Sometimes so true to human mannerisms it made ME feel uncomfortable. Like when you tell someone you love them. I cringe at these moments, because it’s near impossible for me to say it. It tears every part of my gut out to say it. If we were to analyze, I’m sure my parents had a lot to do with that but whatever…actually it may also explain my hard drinking years.

Anyway, her “boy” of fancy is a sports doctor named Aaron Connors played pitch-perfect by Bill Hader. I think he should get a nomination for at least having a lizard face that emotes so much. This seemed to be a gamble, since he isn’t what Amy usually has sex with. She has sex with him anyway. Then things get complicated when their relationship does start to force her to grow up. Hader gets the added benefit of having LeBron James be his BFF. Which he doles out sage sensitive advice with calm sweet natured oddball lines that gave me mad respect for him.

There are a lot of uneven moments. You can tell when they were attempting to inject a scene with laughs. Or a scene where you don’t know whether to cry or laugh. But the women in the theater I saw this movie with were having an amazing time. So, it seemed that may be their target.

As for Amy Shumer, she is a massive star on the rise. I really like her acting. There are real moments in this movie that I was shocked she could muster. That tough smart mouthed cookie is actually hiding something more hurt. But at times we’re heading towards Melissa McCarthy territory, which I didn’t care for. Either way, a SOLID first movie.

Lesson From Bruce

I was over at the other building where an elderly guy sat. I was wasting time so I decided to chat the guy up about filmmaking. He's a guy from the Bronx. His name is Richard. White hair now. He quietly sits around former film equipment. Splicers, rewinds, split reels and the like. We started talking about a guy who use to work at our company named Bruce.

Bruce was a weird fucking guy. I always fucked with him, because it was like that scene in "Rain Man" where Charlie Babbitt screams at Raymond,"I know you're in there somewhere!" Bruce talked like Rain Man too. Always going over the same phrases over and over again. His favorite was "you in charge of the music?" Many looked at him with a passing glance not wanting to engage. I leered at the guy. Dumb retard, is all I could muster. I'm a mean angry jerk sometimes.

Richard grew up with Bruce. He told me back in the early 60's he and Bruce, as kids, use to explore New York City to find locations for their Super 8mm movies. One particular trip they went out to an island, remote from what the map had indicated. Looking closer, the name was called "Welfare Island." As kids this just amped up their curiosity. So they took a subway out to this place and crossed a single bridge onto the island. They discovered later that in the 1800's they use to use it for a lunatics asylum. A place to put undesirables. They later renamed it Roosevelt Island.

Then, as they were exploring a police officer pulled up.

The police saw these two little kids and waved them over. Richard first, then Bruce at his heels. They slowly approached the patrol car, to which Richard then told me he saw an issue of Playboy on the passenger seat. The cop muttered something. To which they both looked at each other, confused. "You kids aren't suppose to be here!!" the cop bellowed. Then drove off. Presumably to find a place to wank off.

They just stood there...perplexed.

Bruce was a filmmaker. He would drag Richard all over NYC looking for potential locations to film. I recall talking (in his more clear moments without the Rain Man shit) to him about my films that I make. He was curious, almost envious that I still had that ambition, and infrastructure to get it done. He was more animated and concise without an ounce of being an idiot when he spoke about making movies. The rest of his life was total garbage. Having gone through TWO...yes two mail order Russian brides who fleeced him. More than anything, he loved that I was "out there" giving it a go. You see, he had given himself so many excuses to stop it all. A clue to his mindset was when I was shooting short spec commercial in the sun. To which he cautioned "oh, you'll never be able to see through that eyepiece. Closing down the aperture that much, you won't be able to focus." I had already shot it, and then showed it to him. To which, to his credit, he glowed about the quality. Left speechless about how it was possible to get that type of image on 16mm. He started to believe his excuses, I guess.

I asked him one time if he'd be willing to sell me one of his cameras. As he owned 16mm Bolex cameras. This one was a motorized 16mm camera that I could really put to use. He got quiet. And never responded. Ever. I got the message: don't bring it up again. I could tell it was something personal. As if it was the last grasp of his youth on that island. Despite the fact that this camera was encased in some basement in the Bronx, completely unused, to sell it would mean the final admittance that he didn't do what he wanted in life.

Bruce died a few months back. It saddens me he didn't at least give it one more try. But the world had passed him, as life had pretty much marginalized his existence. I could tell you the time he was at the crossroads of meeting Stan Lee and offered the rights to Spider Man, which is a true story, but he turned it down, for reasons only Bruce knows. I assume he was haunted with that decision for life. But I think what I got from this is that you should never stop trying. Despite adversity. To go to your grave not feeling you gave all you could to yourself is one of the greatest disappointments.

Nutty As Fuck

One of the things I’ve got to learn is to relax a little when I film a scene.

I had it in my head about a specific scene where things moved more fluid. During the actual shoot, nervous energy built up and I ended up shooting “safely.” Basically for coverage rather than cinematically. I know when I look at that scene it will grate on me. Because I didn’t exactly have it in my head that way.

A co-worker had told me an interesting thing. He is a 60 year old dude who’s seen a lot. This is his mental check list he does when he makes movies which I think is great. A) does the main character change in any way B) are they active in what they do.

I was watching a documentary on “Star Wars” and it seemed Lucas also faced that issue. Having been behind by two weeks of shooting, it was now three separate production units rushing to get back on schedule. And keep producers at bay who were champing to shut down this over bloated production. I’m not sure if that was indecision or focusing on “the vision” he had, but it seemed this was gnawing at him. The idea that his pre-visualization didn’t match what was in front of the camera. That is heart breaking when this happens. Because you waste a lot of time and energy wondering why, instead of pressing forward. A good producer (in this case Gary Kurtz) pushes forward. Calming the director into the realities of all shoots. Experience would dictate that we don’t always get everything we want on a shoot. I maybe imagine this like a quarterback. If he throws an interception, he can’t dwell on it, or he’s dead in the water. He has to press forward and shake off the disappointment. One possession later, the ball is coming back to him, and he has to decide whether to keep making the same mistake or shrug it off. For the time being anyway. True leaders win the war, maybe lose a few battles. But decisions are made within seconds if not minutes of the actual issue. One false move, and it can be a disaster.

It gets to me. I’ll be honest. It has nothing to do with actor performance. For me, I’m looking at a lot of things. Boom shots and so forth. In fact, one take the lavalier (remote microphone) taped to the actress was in the shot. This burned film and a possible good take. I lost it…internally. I know some have lost their shit openly. There’s a behind the scenes of Ridley Scott flipping off his headphones and cursing when a camera had jammed during a take. I have no luxury. And who would I vent to anyway? It’s humbling.

I actually forgot how panicked it gets. Waiting for light to change in an exterior. Repositioning light, actor’s eyelines, the 180 rule, park rangers shutting us down. It’s all run and gun. Which is running through my head constantly, all the while deciding if a take is useful or not. This is your support group that needs to monitor you and the work. Again, I would not recommend my work flow to everyone. I do wonder the times I did have when all I had to worry about is actor performance. Especially when dialogue is involved. Shooting movies are disjointed process. In a bigger movie, they don’t care much about running through footage. In mine, I have to decide sometimes where to pick up a line on camera or where to end a scene. This juggling isn’t the most optimal in getting it right, it’s getting it down on film. I piece what I have in my head, run through it again before wrap and still have to figure out if my crew doesn’t want to lynch me. I mean the ones I have.

I think it’s the same on whatever budget, time and temperaments you have. On “Saw” I saw director and producer hovered over a script wondering what can be cut and still maintain the core of the story. This is painful for all, since it means less screen time for talent, and retooling your brain to see your movie in a different way.

On “Fast 7” (for which I only scanned the negative) director James Wan (who also directed “Saw”) had to deal with the tragic loss of Paul Walker. Actually he dealt with two issues. One, how to finish his installment in the series with what footage they had with Paul, the second preserving the franchise to move forward without hate from the public. That is a ton of responsibility.

When I was shooting “Afro Ninja” the director took on a lot. I’m still unsure how he got through it. There was even a specific time where he had to leave (with his producer hat on) and get money to pay for a location. He literally went to a bank and returned with a briefcase while the crew waited, and complained. I didn’t know it at the time, but I sensed the pressure. And he never cracked. He plodded forward like the captain of a ship. I have a great amount of respect for him, considering he also spent $1 million of his own money to have his movie realized.

I know in the grand scheme “Nick’s Van” isn’t on that scale. Nor even on a moderate scale. This was no budget moxie on everyone’s part. True grit, I suppose. I also contend that none of this gets easier. That’s cool. I don’t expect it to. The simple fact that something was made, and I can hold it says a lot already. My co-worker/friend Kai simplified it…”man, you have something.” It wasn’t “something” like lighting in a bottle, it was…anything. A thing. I love the concept that people still appreciate “can-do.” Matter of fact, I support this type of insanity. As with my friend Bennie. The guy is gung-ho and respect the hell out of him. He shot a full feature with a 16mm crank camera. To which I HAD to be a part of it. I constantly remind him what steel nuts it takes to do what he did. Good or bad. And I always check in with him when I can.

There’s a documentarian now who is attempting to make a film preservation interview movie that he intends to shoot with film. That guy is nutty as fuck. He wants to interview ME. Because of what I do. How can I say no?

To be perfectly clear, I want everyone involved to be proud of what we did for absolutely no money. It’s near impossible to do so without sacrificing so much. And the public can get cruel. No one cares about your obstacles, only that you didn’t waste their time. I do often get cerebral about it, ‘cause mostly, I’d just like to improve. I suspect this is very much like golf. You play the game, but you never master it.

"Far And Away" 1992

I remember the dulcet tones of Enya at the movie theater I worked at when this movie played. It brings back a ton of memories. Mostly that I worked at a movie theater, and that drunk women would come in and wanna watch Tom Cruise’s asscheeks.

This movie is about the American Dream. In the late 1800’s there was a land rush in Oklahoma. This brought out many people wanting to claim a stake in land. This was when land was pure, and that we’re not all just renting it. The process is simple, bust a flag and stake your parcel of land. Seems easy enough. Unless you’re an immigrant with just lint in your pocket.

Tom Cruise portrays Joe Donnelly, a scrappy Irishman who hitches a ride with Shannon Christie (played by Nicole Kidman) to America to get land. Before Donnelly’s pop had passed, his dying words were that land is all that makes one a man. Similar to “Gone With The Wind” when Scarlett is reminded by her father that the red Earth of Tara (the plantation they owned) means everything.

But first, as they arrive in America, they come to the harsh reality that it’s not the dream they envisioned. It’s full of racism, poverty and hunger. That they faced adversity through a class system that excludes them from basic human conditions. Easy for Donnelly, since he’s always had nothing, a wake up call to Shannon, since she was of the privilege in Ireland.

While not a great movie, it is epic. It spans a great deal of time. But it also allows some real sentimental moments to shine through. It’s a movie that could only be made, if John Williams did the score. Because it’s big. The scope of this movie is just stunning (especially as this movie was blown up to 70mm print back in the day). The score alone blew you to the back of the theater, as I remember as a teen hearing it through the walls. It’s a type of movie that must be seen in theaters. It’s reminded me that Ron Howard was that type of filmmaker then. That he didn’t shy away from grandeur.

I love these types of movies. Yes, some weak plot points for convenience, but the movie does envelope you. And takes you to another place. Damn…shame they don’t make this type of movie anymore. I get the feeling Quentin Tarantino’s “Hateful Eight” may bring it back.