Filmmaking...With Film

“Nick’s Van” is so much more of a wide open movie than anything I’ve actually made. By the way, I don't say "directed" I say "made." People who call themselves directors early in their start are delusional. They don't direct, they put out fires (which some may think is directing). If I ever use the term "directing" it's because of a title that needs to be in place. To which, it's a placeholder not a earned position. The people who call themselves "directors" who don't do it professionally...it seems phony to me. Like even when I was paid as a cinematographer, I still couldn't bring myself to call myself a "director of photography." Not out of some insecurity, because it would dilute the cameraman I respected, who did SO much more than I have. To crown myself that would be insulting the ones who've made a real mark in the movie business. I think this is an old school way of thinking.

Anyway, this movie's environments are so much more “outside” than concentrated on a few tight spaces. I think that’s what other filmmakers have told me, that movies need to be…exterior. It lets viewers breathe. I think that’s why James Bond movies are so popular. Because they are in environments, instead of soundstages. I have a friend who uses outside spaces too. It makes it feel “cinematic.” Movies are suppose to make you feel like there is no camera. That we’re watching real things occur. I think a lot of studio directors don’t shoot on backlots for that reason. It’s too controlled. The minute you take a movie out of the walls of the studio and random things occur, that’s the reality that sells the reality. Movies need depth. A perfectly lit shot doesn’t seem real. Little kicks of light here and there make it much more three dimensional (why a lot of processed green screen stuff looks weird, it may look convincing but we still feel something is off).

It seems pretty obvious, but because of my budget, control and schedules, I just did with what I had. And I’m really happy for what I was able to get, under the circumstances. By all logic (and mostly ignorance) this movie should’ve never been shot. I had short ends and recans of film. A few factory new film from Kodak and a camera with one lens. Yes, ONE lens. I didn’t have insurance to rent, so I retrofitted the one lens I did own to fit the new mount on this camera. I did a test shoot and decided it was good. However, a single test didn’t exactly prove the edges were fine. This was something only a field test could prove. And this was it. Surprisingly, the camera and lens performed above what I expected. I really was stressed as to if any of this would survive the days we shot. I mean, nothing was locked down and so much could go wrong. This is not any different than million dollar shoots. But still…

I still didn’t have the capacity to pull focus. And since I’m looking at the mirrored shutter, I saw what the lens saw. Anytime I went below a T-stop (aperture) of 5.6 I was looking into darkness. Case in point, shooting outdoors with 500ASA film yielded about a T45. NOT T4.5 I mean T45. It’s basically a pinhole at a shutter angle of 180. Which is when I opened up the aperture to set focus and then close down to compensate for the light. I toggled between a T16 and a T22. Since backlit people are shadowed a bit on their faces. No time for fill. That made me about 2 stops over and one stop under (for the face). Key was hopefully in the middle somewhere. The results weren’t bad, but that little control is frustrating when you’re working in time sensitive locations. And it’s not optimal in terms of depth of field. I would’ve been much happier around a T11. Which would’ve required I stopped down about two stops. An 85 correction filter would’ve helped. I would then rate the film at 320ASA (2/3rds a stop) then a neutral density .3 would kick it down another stop, which then I’d rate film at 160ASA. To which I would’ve been down to my desired stop. This would also mean I had a thick piece of glass in front of my lens. To which I was already focusing relatively blind (this is when the tape measure comes out).I had a combination 85ND3 filter. But the matte box (holds filters) didn’t fit this camera. I would’ve had to juri rig something to the front of the lens. To which I was locked into the focus. No good on that. So I had to shoot the film at 500ASA unfiltered (blue tint) and hope for the best. Did I also happen to mention that none of my magazines for film was scratch tested or lubricated after having sat in some old guy’s garage in temperature fluctuating Colorado for years?

It’s funny how little people think about these things. Quite honestly why should they? It’s all part of the process of making movies. The curious understand and want to know why. Others grow impatient with this process. I’m not sure who they dial it in in the digital world. It seems so automatic. The result is somewhat of a very distinct looking movie. Not as beaten up and crunchy as I like to see film look like. I was going for a very dated period look. Washed out image with grain popping. It’s really smooth for what I got. It’s a testament to how much faith I have in mechanical film gear and the confidence that goes with the gentle hum of film rolling through. When you hear it, you know. The camera will let you know otherwise. Digital cameras are a mystery that moves into a unseen hard drive. Unable to know if it’s even on, except for a little light that indicates something is being recorded.

Film is THAT resilient.

More Movie Business Junk

Just worked on a project where the cinematographer on it had been bad mouthed by the production. He’s an old school shooter who buried his style in the movie. The way a cameraman is suppose to do. He has been shooting for decades. Big studio movies with big studio names. Now…to have to deal with this…I feel for the guy.

I mean the guy is a professional. He is hired for his “look” and how he lights women. It’s beautiful work. The fucking studio complained about his style. These guys looked through movies decided he was right for the movie, then second guessed him. Yes, they pay him a lot of money, but what’s the logic of this much trust in someone just to wrangle him in. Which is it?

To make it worse, the guys I work for side with the studio. Bah! The problem was no one could make a decision, so when the upstairs guys saw the dailies, they worried that they couldn’t remove what he had established. Yeah, you paid him for his style (as if I needed to remind them).

It drives me nuts. Because this is what you deal with on every level of the game. Unless you fund it. Then it’s all your say. That is the tradeoff.  Unfortunately, the minute you take “their money” you are at their mercy, no matter who you worked with in the past. I’m not sure you can define this level of frustration, but I’d vomit on myself everyday. It’s enough you battle weather, temperaments, bad set food, tight schedules, now you have to justify your shooting style. I have no clue as to how people deal with it. I suppose if you’re paid enough, you do whatever they say…but still. There is no well of good will that you keep filling with your talent or experience. People forget what you’ve done. On whatever level. In fact, sometimes, it turns against you. Your past may come back to haunt you. And you wonder why the small things on movie sets drives the creative type nuts. When your name in up there, random people make comments. Everyone has an opinion and it’s mostly to criticize. The only people who really are on your side is your family. Family isn’t just by blood though. Sometimes a lot of your support comes from your friends you grew up with and only have your best interest as heart. It’s unfortunate when people do move up in the world, how quickly they shed the people who care the most. Those people care more that you eat and get rest. The others are opportunist. But it’s hard to tell who is who, because you surround yourself with such desperate people.

I count myself extremely fortunate that I’ve not dealt with that. That and I’m not on the level of this guy who shoots. Or the directors he’s worked with. Again, it seems to me it is purely about discomfort level. If he has a mortgage to pay, he may have to eat some crow. Sell a certain part of himself to gain that freedom later on. My guess is that a lot of that starts to grate on their own psyche and they forget why they loved making movies in the first place. Nothing more soul crushing than putting your heart into something only to have someone starting out in the business be the person who has the final say. I’m also not sure how that works. Meritocracy does weed out the fly by nights, but nepotism drives a lot of the business.

Am I writing anything that hasn’t already been considered or mentioned in other opinion pieces. Most likely not. So I hope you don’t feel alone if you get to that place where you feel helpless and your skill is constantly questioned. In some odd way, I feel vindicated for some creative battles I fight for. No one is kind to you the way you can be kind to yourself. And most of us are very cruel. That’s just the bitch of working in the movie business.

"The Bodyguard" (1992)

“The Bodyguard” (1992)

This movie is pretty corny. But it did prove why Whitney Houston was a star. She plays herself much better than anyone could’ve. Actually plays the rich bitch with a sense of…commitment. Little did we know years later, how tragic her life would play out. Had she only gotten herself a Kevin Costner. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe this movie was the last time she was happy.

The movie is about a bodyguard who has to protect a woman who is famous from someone who has threatened her. Not exactly a deep concept. What ends up happening is a lot of who could it be. Is it the Albino nutjob who has a shrine dedicated to her? Is it her manager? Who could it be?

This movie is a music video. A long one. There is a lot of good music. Not to mention a nice Allman Brothers music interlude. It’s his music. Without saying, we know these are two people from two different worlds. Pop versus blues country. Without a word, we know a lot already.

There are moments where it does let down its guard (literally). For instance going on a public date to a movie with the biggest pop star in the world? Really? No one blinks at this. Only to service the script.

But whatever, it’s a pretty good movie to watch with a girl. They’re suckers for this type of corn, because they like protectors. It also goes under my banner of “Movies That Make You Feel Rich.” “St. Elmo’s Fire” does that too. I think it’s David Foster’s music that does it.

Speaking of corn, I need to get a couple of boiled ones out my pot right now. That’s it for now.

Sinead O' Connor On Kardashian

“What is this c*** (“I don’t smile much because it causes wrinkles”) doing on the cover of Rolling Stone?”~ Sinead O'Connor on Kim Kardashian on Rolling Stone cover.

I've not seen one thing Kardashian has done. Even the Ray J. thing. Seriously. Though I know she hasn't made a record, a movie, a novel, hell...not sure she's even signs her own check. But there she is on the cover, goading us all to get ill at her stupid fucking face. I don't have a clue as to who she is or what she does, but somehow even that infuriates me. I think more people get more press hating on her than being her. I'm sure she's a nice person, but to be on the cover of a music magazine with the very transparent notion of getting lookie-loos is...well...a bit cheap.

Speaking of which, it would be weird if Kim Kardashian went completely broke and she had to survive, say...working at Wendy's or a Chik-fil-A. It's weird that she has in place, a position where failure isn't even an option. I doubt she's a dummy. But, if the world would tune out and send her to the poor house to see if she really does sink or swim, then you'd get your real answer as to who she really is. She seems to be a fighter. She gets Ray J. nuts to the face, I would think you have to have no moral bottom. That type of freedom is priceless in our world who cares so much.

The Producer

You know what a movie producer actually does? They are the ones that take on the burden of the entire project. At least that’s the way it use to be. Back in the day the producer made EVERY decision. Far more powerful than the director. That person would be the single minded champion of the movie from start to finish dragging it to completion if need be. Legendary guys like David O. Selznick (by the way, the “O” in his name doesn’t stand for anything. I guess because it sounds more producer to have a middle initial) would be in the editing bay and physically even drag film through the trim bins (when film print was still made). He pushed and pulled “Gone With The Wind” to the finish line, and more than likely took years off his life over it.

Producers were the true visionaries of movies. They found scripts. Bought books to make into movies. They were the heart and drive that brought people together to make movies. Most just loved watching movies, others just like being around stars. Nowadays, a producer could be anyone. Some consider their parents producers. Which is very valid, considering they have faith YOU will make the movie they can see you make. Unfortunately, that type of support tends to be less about the project and more about the person. Blind faith is what we’d all want, but it doesn’t necessarily make a great movie.

Some producers are people like Jerry Bruckheimer. Guy’s name brings money to a project. Time was, Bruckheimer was box office gold. He found a niche in combining a great soundtrack with young directing talent. He still does. But it’s not printing money like he use to. His ability to package deals seems not to be the way they do things as much anymore. Maybe it is, since the agencies became producers. But the true movie lovers are pretty rare now. Can’t blame them as their budgets have skyrocketed.

The traditional sense of the producers was a glamorous position in that you could decide so many things. If you have the money, you have a say. Power in the shadows. In an odd sense, I don’t mind having someone with a track record giving input. Or demanding something be done a certain way. Many directors despise it, especially if they are strong visualist. Most money people don’t understand the complexities of some stories. For instance, Warner Bros. bought The Wachowski’s “Matrix” without having a clue as to what it was about. They just saw storyboards and thought it was cool. I believe Joel Silver saw its potential. Joel was pretty notorious back in the 1990’s. Very few people give him credit as to his contribution to those action movies of that era (in particular one of my favorites “The Last Boy Scout”).

I think the term of “producer” is vague in today’s world. Even in studio terms, it’s very odd to know who the sole producer would be. There’s so many people who wish to take on that title and not really do the leg work to drag the project to the top of the hill. That is actual work. Instead, it seems, the person who puts in the loudest opinion, with freebies (such as letting you use their home as a location…yes, this is silly, but I’ve seen it) is a producer.

"Silkwood" (1983)

This movie is about human behavior and characteristics. It's a hauntingly real movie that has more to do with people in a lull in life than the true events of a mystery.

Meryl Streep plays Karen Silkwood a small town union worker that deals with radioactive material. What you see is her daily life of drudgery, tacked with an estranged relationship with a man who is the father of her children, whilst trying to maintain a household with her current boyfriend (in an amazingly real Kurt Russell performance).

What I loved about this movie is that it was a very specific mood and atmosphere of that part of the world. Director Mike Nichols captured the grit of people. Going as far as to dowdy Cher up and making sure she stripped herself of the glamor that was her bread and butter. What you get are strong barely perceptible "acting." They just "were" these people. Yes, nothing big happens. And there is no way a movie like this gets made today. But, it made me remember my road trips out to the country, where people existed just to exist and understood the terms of their lives, even if they wanted to do better, it just wasn't something they were born into.

I think it would speak to a lot of people today.

MLB All-Star Game In Cincinnati 2015

"Baby, if you ever wondered...wondered whatever became of me..."

If you're from the city of Cincinnati, you immediately know this first line.

It's been the bane of our existence. Anyway, it's cool having the MLB All-Star Game in my hometown. I get to see celebrities who walk the streets I use to haunt as a teen. Go to the ballpark I went to as a kid. And it's cool to see the focus on the Reds, that isn't followed with groans of disappointment. It's been those types of years now. Anyway, it's also cool to see celebrities (more recent ones) that are from there. Nick Lachey, Josh Hutcherson, Nick Lowe and so forth. Strange not to see George Clooney there, since he almost played for the Reds. Stranger to see Snoop Dogg there, since the Crips have adopted the "C" cap to represent their thuggery.

When I came out to L.A. I thought people in South Central were Reds fans. Little did I know.

I lost interest in baseball years ago. I played little league, but truth was, having balls thrown at you by some kid is nerve-wracking. I always had this unsettling feeling that at any point I'd get beaned and would have to be in the hospital for some time. I was a tough kid, but when it comes to things whizzing by me, I might as well have been a chick. I did well as starting batter. I always got on base. Never had the power for the dingers, but was squirrely enough to just knock the ball past the infield.

Those were good times. Being outside was a lot of fun. Got your vitamin D, and fresh air. What we all should be doing,