A personal log of what I'm working on right now:
I'm shooting my "perfect scene" (from Punch Drunk Love) sometime this weekend, reportedly. We have an actor more or less set for the dramatic Adam Sandler role. I'll likely play the Dentist, which is cool for me. I get a kick out of playing absurdly deadpan. I guess that's my "stage persona".
I pitched my final project for Narrative. Right now it's called Dysart Revisited, more details will follow as I reify things [I love that word!] and start working on pre-production. My professor really seemed to like it; he referred to an author I hadn't heard of, and I felt kinda stupid that I didn't who that was. It's not like I have to know everything, but at least I should be aware of similar styles of writing...
It comes down to father vs. son in a dying Southern town, stylistically Jim Jarmusch meets Terrence Malick. (Which I should write a post about one of these days.)
Details to follow...
And I'm working on my old feature-length again. I haven't thought about it since last August, and I don't think I've written of a word of it since December 2007. I totally revamped it, but I won't spill any beans. Yet.
Though I will say that the project has been constantly evolving since I first envisioned it in April 2004. Yes, that long ago.
In fact, there's only one common element through all the drafts, and even that has significantly diminished in importance over time. (Yeah, not even the same characters or types of plot.) It's like generations worth of organisms.
Anyway.
Showing posts with label directing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label directing. Show all posts
2.26.2009
2.21.2009
Write and Wrong
Recently I've come to the conclusion that I'm a writer at heart.
I've actually known this for a quite a while, so it's not exactly a surprise. But by concluding that it has moved from the realm of possibility to fact.
What do I mean?
I've been writing things for as long I can remember. I attempted writing down stories before I had a good grasp of the form of the alphabet-- that's how long.
Some people work to develop their fiction writing muscles with conscious ambition, to improve their self-expression and creativity. Personally, I can't help it: I've had one writing project or another going continuously since 7th grade.
At some point, I assumed, I'd just "get over it" and settle down with a real goal for an occupation. I guess I thought I'd say "oh snap!" and suddenly realize that Public Health was where it was at. Or something.
My first major in college was Rhetoric. That was like, inverse writing. Whoa. Understanding how communication works. I loved it, and I still love it.
But it was just as impractical as majoring in Creative Writing, as Rhetoric tends to be a gateway for either marketing or PR. Around this time last year I realized that I have little interest for either.
So where did that leave me? Media.
Working on a film and at a television studio gave me a great amount of joy. I've always been attracted to the media, and the thought of making it happen always seemed to be too good to be true, like there was something standing in my way.
Turned out there wasn't.
When I directed my first little "serious" short, I felt the thrill of composing the visual presentation and working with the actors. It can be a pain, but in the end it's exhilarating.
But my stumbling block is that I've never been one to play with the toys for the toy's sake. I'm probably the last person on earth to get excited about a new piece of tech. I'm interested in things that can serve my creative needs.
So I'm not the dude who gets a thrill from setting up the dolly, or chatting about the latest piece of equipment.
I'm the dude who wants to sit down with the actors and chat about their characters. I'm the dude who goes off by himself and thinks, "what is the best way to show this?" then presents my vision to the DP, who figures out the nitty-gritty.
Turns out the former set of skills is more highly prized by the industry than the latter. Why? Because there can only be so many "creative" leads at one given time.
Most of the work has to be done by the creative grunts, the ones who know all the secrets of Final Cut and After Effects.
That's what I mean by saying that I'm a writer at heart. I want to create the story, not create the creation of the story.
I do have anxieties that my own technical skills are not "enough" in the cutthroat industry. I could even be right: I certainly have no interest in becoming a DP.
I quote from an interview with superb writer/director Joss Whedon, who somehow managed to not compromise artistic success with commercial success:
Heaven's Gate is an unbelievably gorgeous movie. It is also physically painful to watch.
Cassavettes didn't give a flip about how his movies looked: which makes them an ordeal to sit through when you're accustomed to Hollywood-ish aesthetics. A better model is my arch-hero Altman, who made movies that looked good, but wouldn't let the requirements of "correctness" diminish what he was trying to accomplish.
In conclusion: My goal, then is to do my best (with the help of others) to do as much of the "creation" as possible. And hope for the best.
I've actually known this for a quite a while, so it's not exactly a surprise. But by concluding that it has moved from the realm of possibility to fact.
What do I mean?
I've been writing things for as long I can remember. I attempted writing down stories before I had a good grasp of the form of the alphabet-- that's how long.
Some people work to develop their fiction writing muscles with conscious ambition, to improve their self-expression and creativity. Personally, I can't help it: I've had one writing project or another going continuously since 7th grade.
At some point, I assumed, I'd just "get over it" and settle down with a real goal for an occupation. I guess I thought I'd say "oh snap!" and suddenly realize that Public Health was where it was at. Or something.
My first major in college was Rhetoric. That was like, inverse writing. Whoa. Understanding how communication works. I loved it, and I still love it.
But it was just as impractical as majoring in Creative Writing, as Rhetoric tends to be a gateway for either marketing or PR. Around this time last year I realized that I have little interest for either.
So where did that leave me? Media.
Working on a film and at a television studio gave me a great amount of joy. I've always been attracted to the media, and the thought of making it happen always seemed to be too good to be true, like there was something standing in my way.
Turned out there wasn't.
When I directed my first little "serious" short, I felt the thrill of composing the visual presentation and working with the actors. It can be a pain, but in the end it's exhilarating.
But my stumbling block is that I've never been one to play with the toys for the toy's sake. I'm probably the last person on earth to get excited about a new piece of tech. I'm interested in things that can serve my creative needs.
So I'm not the dude who gets a thrill from setting up the dolly, or chatting about the latest piece of equipment.
I'm the dude who wants to sit down with the actors and chat about their characters. I'm the dude who goes off by himself and thinks, "what is the best way to show this?" then presents my vision to the DP, who figures out the nitty-gritty.
Turns out the former set of skills is more highly prized by the industry than the latter. Why? Because there can only be so many "creative" leads at one given time.
Most of the work has to be done by the creative grunts, the ones who know all the secrets of Final Cut and After Effects.
That's what I mean by saying that I'm a writer at heart. I want to create the story, not create the creation of the story.
I do have anxieties that my own technical skills are not "enough" in the cutthroat industry. I could even be right: I certainly have no interest in becoming a DP.
I quote from an interview with superb writer/director Joss Whedon, who somehow managed to not compromise artistic success with commercial success:
WHEDON: You get so many people out here with incredible technical expertise who have nothing to say, or no idea of the importance of having something to say, or the importance of understanding what they're saying.I discovered this interview after I wrote the above paragraphs, and I'm glad that Mr. Whedon sees things in a similar light that I do. Nobody wants their film or TV show to look like crap-- but why bother making it pretty when there's nothing to stand behind it?
IGNFF: Do you think, to some extent, those are the kind of filmmakers that the Hollywood executive tends to like – because they're malleable?
WHEDON: Yeah. Well, you want somebody who can make it pretty and make it work and give the executive what the executive thinks they want, and bring something to the party. Not just translate the words. If you're the writer, what you're looking for is somebody who can convey the actual meaning of the script... and quite frankly, people who are just schooled in production don't really have that. There's a lot of people out there who make a pretty frame, that has nothing to do with what is said.
Heaven's Gate is an unbelievably gorgeous movie. It is also physically painful to watch.
Cassavettes didn't give a flip about how his movies looked: which makes them an ordeal to sit through when you're accustomed to Hollywood-ish aesthetics. A better model is my arch-hero Altman, who made movies that looked good, but wouldn't let the requirements of "correctness" diminish what he was trying to accomplish.
In conclusion: My goal, then is to do my best (with the help of others) to do as much of the "creation" as possible. And hope for the best.
2.05.2009
Directing For Beginners (Like Me)
Today in class we observed our professor direct some professional (!) actors. As in, SAG Member, IMDB credits actors. Yeah!
Very instructively, he went through his entire process: having the actors read the scene, discuss it, rehearse it, and then block the shots. Clearly he knew what he was doing, and for a bonus the writing was great.
Once the camera was turned on, the scene played terribly. It played... like two people playing a scene. Our instructor made some adjustments ( by encouraging them to actually look at each other every now and then when they talk) and that was a huge improvement.
But still... to me it was kinda off.
I thought about what I would have done differently.
This wasn't an action sequence or clever chit-chat. The characters are retired ex-lovers being forced to catch up in a gorgeous mountain setting, even though neither of them really wants to do it. However, the man has something important to tell the woman, which has brought him to this point in the first place.
I didn't know the context when I first read the scene-- It seemed like a Woody Allen/Diane Keaton moment: a neurotic dude and a cool (albeit slightly wonky) chick discuss their past and skim the surface of their future.
I think what was missing from the performances was a true sense of tension. Neither character wants to be in this position, but they must. Hateful memories and mountain scenery are an incredible clash. Heck, talking about ancient, buried conflicts anywhere is tough enough!
I wanted the characters to just sit there. Sit. There. Until the tension is so unbearable that one of them must speak. Each response in return occurs because it must happen in order to break the tension.
When I write and read scripts, I envision scenes from the big to the small picture: I have to find a sense of the mood and contextual scenario before I would pinpoint the actors in terms of their character's business.
Nobody goes through life planning their next emotion, fulfilling an arc of their identity as they progress through each moment. (Unless they are a manipulative psychopath, and in that case they're missing a big chunk of their humanity.)
Instead, we as agents are thrust into milieus. There is no script. We act according to our nature/experience (our character) and the "rules" of the scenario: cultural, social, spatial, emotional.
Why should film/theater/fiction be any different?
Why shouldn't an actor interpolate their character into the scenario, instead of "interrogating" that character to see what they'd do at a specific moment?
What's easier: explaining to a stranger what you did all day, or explaining which emotion you felt on the top of each hour?
Just my take. But I'm still learning.
Very instructively, he went through his entire process: having the actors read the scene, discuss it, rehearse it, and then block the shots. Clearly he knew what he was doing, and for a bonus the writing was great.
Once the camera was turned on, the scene played terribly. It played... like two people playing a scene. Our instructor made some adjustments ( by encouraging them to actually look at each other every now and then when they talk) and that was a huge improvement.
But still... to me it was kinda off.
I thought about what I would have done differently.
This wasn't an action sequence or clever chit-chat. The characters are retired ex-lovers being forced to catch up in a gorgeous mountain setting, even though neither of them really wants to do it. However, the man has something important to tell the woman, which has brought him to this point in the first place.
I didn't know the context when I first read the scene-- It seemed like a Woody Allen/Diane Keaton moment: a neurotic dude and a cool (albeit slightly wonky) chick discuss their past and skim the surface of their future.
I think what was missing from the performances was a true sense of tension. Neither character wants to be in this position, but they must. Hateful memories and mountain scenery are an incredible clash. Heck, talking about ancient, buried conflicts anywhere is tough enough!
I wanted the characters to just sit there. Sit. There. Until the tension is so unbearable that one of them must speak. Each response in return occurs because it must happen in order to break the tension.
When I write and read scripts, I envision scenes from the big to the small picture: I have to find a sense of the mood and contextual scenario before I would pinpoint the actors in terms of their character's business.
Nobody goes through life planning their next emotion, fulfilling an arc of their identity as they progress through each moment. (Unless they are a manipulative psychopath, and in that case they're missing a big chunk of their humanity.)
Instead, we as agents are thrust into milieus. There is no script. We act according to our nature/experience (our character) and the "rules" of the scenario: cultural, social, spatial, emotional.
Why should film/theater/fiction be any different?
Why shouldn't an actor interpolate their character into the scenario, instead of "interrogating" that character to see what they'd do at a specific moment?
What's easier: explaining to a stranger what you did all day, or explaining which emotion you felt on the top of each hour?
Just my take. But I'm still learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
