...that stands for "I Took A Breath And Let It Out." My standard disclaimer for when I don't have so much to blog about.
...with the work on TA91 entering its final stages (sound, color, titles, ladida) I'm starting to have a little time to think about my next projects, which is an amazing luxury I never appreciated before. I did have this idea that making an indie feature would be all-consuming before I started it, but it's different when the whale actually up an consumes you. Little things like watching TV, evenings out with friends, and just time to reflect on bullpuckey are great treasures I'll try not to take for granted anymore.
...anyway, I started work on my casino screenplay again. I figure I should have a mainstream-entertainment piece of writing around, just in case, you know, the producing-everything-i-write-myself thing doesn't work out. The whole Cali casino scene is a delicious mix of a familiar cinematic gambling glam with a much dirtier urban subculture that no movie tv show or play has touched, AFAIK, so I figure it's pretty ripe for Hollywood acquisition at some point. I'm not sure when this poker-craze bubble is going to burst, but at our culture's currently level of frivolity there's no reason to think it'll be soon. That's the other plus about writing about something I know; there's no feeling of selling out nor of abusing the subject matter. The depravity is just as it is, and the gratuitous kung fu, sex and gunplay I'm adding is just to lighten the atmosphere. Also, I don't have to worry about libel or confidentiality, because the intricacies of the games and how they're played would be much too boring to have in a movie anyway, and the amusing insanity of the players is interchangeable enough that no single person would recognize themselves.
...so I'm gonna try to finish that soon, and maybe the zeitgeist wil work to my favor. After that or probably during that I'll be writing a new project to shoot. As much butt as TA91 ostensibly kicks, the next project is going to kick even more butt because of what I've learned about doing a microbudget DIY feature. Although it would be nice to have more money next time, I know now that it could be done for even less, with the right planning. It definitely could not be done in a casino though, so for now I'll have to keep those two stories separate.
A few reasons I want to make the next Hitchhiker's Guide movie...
1. There's a very fine line between a depressive passive character and a depressive active character. In the original TV series, Marvin the robot is hilarious and touching. In this current movie Marvin is ALMOST hilarious until you realize that he's just WHINING. It's just a minor shading different from the TV actor's performance, but a key distinction. The movie Marvin seems to be saying, "Life sucks, and it makes me sad." The TV robot's attitude was "Life sucks," but he was indignant about it. You could detect a certain active hostility towards the Big Futility of It All, buried under the deadpan delivery. That little touch of resentment gave the actor something to play which resonated much stronger than the current movie version, who seems to be merely commenting and reacting to the fact that Life Sucks.
2. The love story of Arthur and Trillian is, in the books, understated to the point of being almost non-existent, and because of that, unbearably sexy and sweet. I had a vivid dream in my adolescence about the whole unrequitedness of it all. By actually depicting the love story in the movie in the form of cutesy "love dialogue," they somehow managed to destroy a romance that barely existed in the first place. We never really get why Arthur digs Trillian, although there are plenty of reasons seeded into their dialogues in the book, all of which are replaced in the movie by this "she's so pretty/she's the one" kind of hooha.
3. The story necessitates a lot of exposition, but there were a lot of tangents which gave the answers to questions I didn't really care about, while other admittedly confusing things were left undealt-with. The whole beauty of Hitchhiker's is that the narrative pauses so frequently to allow you to ponder some trivial aspect of life in a funny and revealing way. It's a rhythmic device that, again, was a lot better in the TV show.
4. At the risk of being repetitive, spending less money makes movies better. I'm way over the whole looking-cool-and-saying-nothing thing. The TV series looked a bit cheap, but there are many things about cheap that are inherently funny. which is all the movie needed to be considered a comedy.
2. The love story of Arthur and Trillian is, in the books, understated to the point of being almost non-existent, and because of that, unbearably sexy and sweet. I had a vivid dream in my adolescence about the whole unrequitedness of it all. By actually depicting the love story in the movie in the form of cutesy "love dialogue," they somehow managed to destroy a romance that barely existed in the first place. We never really get why Arthur digs Trillian, although there are plenty of reasons seeded into their dialogues in the book, all of which are replaced in the movie by this "she's so pretty/she's the one" kind of hooha.
3. The story necessitates a lot of exposition, but there were a lot of tangents which gave the answers to questions I didn't really care about, while other admittedly confusing things were left undealt-with. The whole beauty of Hitchhiker's is that the narrative pauses so frequently to allow you to ponder some trivial aspect of life in a funny and revealing way. It's a rhythmic device that, again, was a lot better in the TV show.
4. At the risk of being repetitive, spending less money makes movies better. I'm way over the whole looking-cool-and-saying-nothing thing. The TV series looked a bit cheap, but there are many things about cheap that are inherently funny. which is all the movie needed to be considered a comedy.
The test screening went well.
The response forms indicated that many liked it, a few did not, but at least they hung around long enough to write why they didn't like it. Much encouraging laughter from the audience.
Definitely still felt a few draggy parts. Am now exporting a cut that is about 10 minutes shorter, based on feelings I had about the screening. I attacked it again with the "less is more" mentality....one should always do thus in film editing, I guess, but it was much more clear after seeing it with an audience which parts were redundantly redundant.
....
Am cautiously anxious to see "Hitchhiker's Guide," mainly because it will be nice to see a movie in a theater again after months of being stuck in my own navel/Final Cut Pro session. But also because the original books had a huge effect on me in my adolescence, made me want to write, and as such caused everthing I write to knock off Douglas Adams a little bit, TA91 being no exception, perhaps in fact the worst offender. This new Hitchhiker's movie praaaaaaaabably sucks a bit in that Hollywood way, but that suckage it itself would go further to prove so many of Adams' theses, that I can't imagine it won't be enjoyable.
...
I think Hitchhiker's Guide is also what taught me to write long run-on sentences with lots of double negatives and interminable clauses under the theory that the sheer length in itself will prove funny and the reckless abandon with which the sentence is written, coupled with the complete lack of tangible point, will not be too extremely infuriating.
The response forms indicated that many liked it, a few did not, but at least they hung around long enough to write why they didn't like it. Much encouraging laughter from the audience.
Definitely still felt a few draggy parts. Am now exporting a cut that is about 10 minutes shorter, based on feelings I had about the screening. I attacked it again with the "less is more" mentality....one should always do thus in film editing, I guess, but it was much more clear after seeing it with an audience which parts were redundantly redundant.
....
Am cautiously anxious to see "Hitchhiker's Guide," mainly because it will be nice to see a movie in a theater again after months of being stuck in my own navel/Final Cut Pro session. But also because the original books had a huge effect on me in my adolescence, made me want to write, and as such caused everthing I write to knock off Douglas Adams a little bit, TA91 being no exception, perhaps in fact the worst offender. This new Hitchhiker's movie praaaaaaaabably sucks a bit in that Hollywood way, but that suckage it itself would go further to prove so many of Adams' theses, that I can't imagine it won't be enjoyable.
...
I think Hitchhiker's Guide is also what taught me to write long run-on sentences with lots of double negatives and interminable clauses under the theory that the sheer length in itself will prove funny and the reckless abandon with which the sentence is written, coupled with the complete lack of tangible point, will not be too extremely infuriating.
PRA 5.1.05
To the right I updated the link list with the info for our preview screening of "Untitled Asian Invasion Movie" at VC Filmfest 2005. It's May 1, 9 PM, the DGA on Sunset.
It's "Untitled" cos I may want to back off on the title, although I like it, if I hear any more people struggling to remember what the movie is called. "Test Audience?.....Test....Something...."
It's a preview because the color correction, visual effects, audio and all that are not yet finished. So it will look and sound a little rough in parts but it is a whole movie.
It is also one of about seven different movies in the festival this year involving a love story between two Asian women. But ours is the only one between a human and an alien.
It's "Untitled" cos I may want to back off on the title, although I like it, if I hear any more people struggling to remember what the movie is called. "Test Audience?.....Test....Something...."
It's a preview because the color correction, visual effects, audio and all that are not yet finished. So it will look and sound a little rough in parts but it is a whole movie.
It is also one of about seven different movies in the festival this year involving a love story between two Asian women. But ours is the only one between a human and an alien.
I will stand here and scream while something happens.
Just watched "Spartan" on HBO and decided that I basically like the movie (although it is not David Mamet's best-written work, that still makes it superior to most other film scripts, see previous blog rant on film vs. theater) except can we please please PLEASE call a moratorium on, criminalize, or otherwise cancel for all time this cliche:
Something scary happens, and a girl starts screaming, paralyzed, while other bad things happens...usually until someone rescues her.
It's just toooo stupid to watch. The president's daugher, who at this point in the movie is no stranger to sudden ordeals, sees someone get shot and starts shrieking, and stands Stock Still until someone grabs her. Of course her paralysis puts other lives in danger. Of course this makes me hate her as a person. Of course it is always the girl who does this, even though I'm sure that there are plenty of guys who would also, in such circumstances, suddenly become useless sitting ducks with no fight nor flight instinct. Not that I want to see any of these people in movies. I see enough slow-witted passivity in the course of my daily life. In movies I like to see people taking action under pressure.
Something scary happens, and a girl starts screaming, paralyzed, while other bad things happens...usually until someone rescues her.
It's just toooo stupid to watch. The president's daugher, who at this point in the movie is no stranger to sudden ordeals, sees someone get shot and starts shrieking, and stands Stock Still until someone grabs her. Of course her paralysis puts other lives in danger. Of course this makes me hate her as a person. Of course it is always the girl who does this, even though I'm sure that there are plenty of guys who would also, in such circumstances, suddenly become useless sitting ducks with no fight nor flight instinct. Not that I want to see any of these people in movies. I see enough slow-witted passivity in the course of my daily life. In movies I like to see people taking action under pressure.
Feelgood Montage City
The only thing that kept me going through a strenuous day at work was looking forward to making the closing credit sequence for the movie. We're going to have one of those Top Gun/Trainspotting-esque closing montages introducing all the lead actors and the characters they played (which I believe will be doubly useful because many people among our test audiences have had trouble remembering what the various characters' names are) set to one of our composer's lovely cues. Following that, during the credits roll, we'll throw in all the outtakes from alternate scenes that were funny but contextually didn't fit into the final cut. A little gooshy and indulgent to be sure, but if you can't have this kind of stuff to make you feel good about your movie as it's ending, then why even make one, I ask you.
..."Baby baby....I'll get down on my knees for you..."
..."Baby baby....I'll get down on my knees for you..."
overexposure
Hitting that wall (this happens once a month or so) where I cannot tell whether the editing changes we are making on the movie are making it better, worse, or exactly the same.
...It happens because I stop seeing the movie as a whole but rather as a tediously long stream of minutes formed of 60 seconds each, each second being formed by 24 individual frames that can be rearranged in endless agonizing combinations.
...I want every scene to be great. But watching other movies one notices that most movies are a few good scenes strung together by a bunch of interstitial stuff which enables those good scenes.
...I want every scene to not be noticeably bad. But there are some scenes which while not my favorite are key to setting up the other scenes. So some of those have to stay.
...Most of all I don't want people to go, "so what?" But I honestly don't know whether choosing between 1 or 2 seconds of blackness between scene transitions will make a difference on that score.
...In theater it's nice because if something sucks one night you just adjust it for the performance the next night. But at this stage, if it sucks, it will remain so in perpetuity. So I'm trying to keep my suck antennae at maximum sensitivity. But it's hard, because all it takes is One Bad Second.
...It happens because I stop seeing the movie as a whole but rather as a tediously long stream of minutes formed of 60 seconds each, each second being formed by 24 individual frames that can be rearranged in endless agonizing combinations.
...I want every scene to be great. But watching other movies one notices that most movies are a few good scenes strung together by a bunch of interstitial stuff which enables those good scenes.
...I want every scene to not be noticeably bad. But there are some scenes which while not my favorite are key to setting up the other scenes. So some of those have to stay.
...Most of all I don't want people to go, "so what?" But I honestly don't know whether choosing between 1 or 2 seconds of blackness between scene transitions will make a difference on that score.
...In theater it's nice because if something sucks one night you just adjust it for the performance the next night. But at this stage, if it sucks, it will remain so in perpetuity. So I'm trying to keep my suck antennae at maximum sensitivity. But it's hard, because all it takes is One Bad Second.
all this Poetry of the Human Condition stuff is nice, but....
...I really hope the next movie I make has a giant robot in it.
....
....or a spontaneous rock musical number. I really like those.
....
....or a spontaneous rock musical number. I really like those.
theater vs. film
Just saw a lovely play, Lodestone's Solve For X, and it got me thinking again about the paradox of my two favorite art forms. So closely related, yet so incompatible. One so popular and funded, one so esoteric and poor. The same questions always pop up in my brain:
- Why is there so much good writing in plays, and so much bad writing in movies? -
Plays are about language, movies about image. Of course there is tons of bad writing in theater, but a Really Well-Written Play is ALWAYS about a thousand times better than a screenplay that is considered "well-written." When people say "it's a beautifully written screenplay" they mean "it's not incredibly horrible like every other screenplay I've read/written." Because the standard is much much lower. Plus, seeing a bad play is not quite so offensive to the societal fabric as seeing a bad movie. Seeing a badly-written play is like watching someone fall down publicly on the sidewalk; oh well, that was too bad, no harm done. Seeing those badly-written movies, especially the ones that are erroneously reviewed as having "beautifully-written screenplays," is like being complicit in the national travesty of ego, wasted money, and propaganda that conspires to make the Gigantic Horrible Offensive Films that pass for our entertainment and common reference point.
But there's something else, and I think it has to do with the kind of personalities that write plays. To me, a really well-done play offers a truthful observation about human behavior, something gleaned from years and years of watching people, probably from the sullen dark silent corner of the room in which the potential playwrights are often lurking, wondering about people and why they do things. Films however are made by people whose talent for observation might stop at "My lead actress looks really hot when she's backlit." Y'know, people who don't really care why someone does anything as long as they look good doing it. So if I ruled the world all movies would be made by documentary filmmakers, and music video directors would have to struggle mightily to be handed a narrative project.
- Why are movies more fun than plays? -
Answer, I think: Filmmakers understand something about pop thrill that theater people don't. Duh, obviously, movies are the most popular art form in the world. Movies are the only art form that is truly corrupted by economies of scale. Of course, every artist has to struggle with the balance between "entertaining" and "truthful" (or flash vs. substance, or however you want to frame it) but only in movies is the art of dumbing down the material so highly revered by the establishment. You have to make it dumb so it will play to the potential audience of everyone in the world. Also, you have to give the people what they want in terms of the visceral thrill of high cheekbones and big explosions, and this usually means tossing the incisive, keenly-observed bits of the story, and putting in the money shots.
Obviously, not all movies do this. The movies that you like on the second viewing, or ten years after you first see them, probably don't. The movie that you just saw and enjoyed but can't remember the name of the main character, probably did.
The play I saw tonight offered simple pleasures like well-turned sentences and intimacy with expressive actors. It had moments of theatrical beauty which, for better or worse, just aren't most people's cup of tea. One could say that is because theater is elitist and tends to cater to a literate upper-crust audience; or one could say that is because people don't like to think about their entertainment, and most movies are made so you don't have to think. Hence, they are more fun.
Some plays, most of mine for example, try to get around this by bringing back the populist elements of theater and leaving out the long draining talky parts. So you get plays that have kung-fu battles and musical numbers and, within reason, explosions....and that's all well and good. But it's still more taxing than a night out at the movies because you have to be in physical awe of the person who's actually doing that thing, because oh my god they're actually doing it. They Might Screw Up. In movies, you can just relax and go, "Hey look, Superman flies. He's probably gonna make it to the other side of the screen, and boy am I gonna feel good when that happens. Let's rewind and look at it again."
- Why is doing theater more fun than making films/videos, and why the heck am I making films/videos? -
The plays we did at Emerald Rain Productions (ERP) were, for the most part, like summer camp. Although the quality of the performances varied, the rehearsal process was almost always laughing, singing, dancing, screwing around, the best time I ever had spent with friends, with the added pathos that comes from the built-in finite length of the rehearsal and the play's run, Like the school year, you got to look forward to the bittersweet release of closing night, and the end.
I haven't made like 20 feature films so I'm not the expert, OK, but being on a movie set is not like that. There's too much stuff to do to ever enjoy yourself. All that you care about is that the footage you get can be edited into something that resembles fun, although no fun was had in its creation.
The thing is in films there is the illusory promise of living the "good" life. There's money in the film industry that pays for a lot of peoples' nice cars, nice houses, nice food. You might get pampered in a way that theater people never are. (It's always hilarious to watch "A Long Day's Journey Into Night" and try to imagine the world in which a patriarch could be a rich STAGE actor....) You might get to hang out with people who aren't constantly stressed out, as theater people are, by rent and day jobs and doing a two-hour live show four nights a week for an average of three audience members. You could get to be one of those elitist people, the kind who can, y'know, afford to go to theater.
That promise is a hollow crock of crap of course. But so many people are involved in the business of pursuing it, the hustling, starf*cking and misrepresenting yourself for a part of the Big Film, that the quality of human interactions in the film industry is much less honest and more generally agonizing than those in theater.
Theater is like getting to be in love with someone a little bit without most of the pain.
The fundamental unit of theater-making is communicating with other people.
You can't make a living off theater, but doing it is the best way to spend the moments of your life.
- Why is there so much good writing in plays, and so much bad writing in movies? -
Plays are about language, movies about image. Of course there is tons of bad writing in theater, but a Really Well-Written Play is ALWAYS about a thousand times better than a screenplay that is considered "well-written." When people say "it's a beautifully written screenplay" they mean "it's not incredibly horrible like every other screenplay I've read/written." Because the standard is much much lower. Plus, seeing a bad play is not quite so offensive to the societal fabric as seeing a bad movie. Seeing a badly-written play is like watching someone fall down publicly on the sidewalk; oh well, that was too bad, no harm done. Seeing those badly-written movies, especially the ones that are erroneously reviewed as having "beautifully-written screenplays," is like being complicit in the national travesty of ego, wasted money, and propaganda that conspires to make the Gigantic Horrible Offensive Films that pass for our entertainment and common reference point.
But there's something else, and I think it has to do with the kind of personalities that write plays. To me, a really well-done play offers a truthful observation about human behavior, something gleaned from years and years of watching people, probably from the sullen dark silent corner of the room in which the potential playwrights are often lurking, wondering about people and why they do things. Films however are made by people whose talent for observation might stop at "My lead actress looks really hot when she's backlit." Y'know, people who don't really care why someone does anything as long as they look good doing it. So if I ruled the world all movies would be made by documentary filmmakers, and music video directors would have to struggle mightily to be handed a narrative project.
- Why are movies more fun than plays? -
Answer, I think: Filmmakers understand something about pop thrill that theater people don't. Duh, obviously, movies are the most popular art form in the world. Movies are the only art form that is truly corrupted by economies of scale. Of course, every artist has to struggle with the balance between "entertaining" and "truthful" (or flash vs. substance, or however you want to frame it) but only in movies is the art of dumbing down the material so highly revered by the establishment. You have to make it dumb so it will play to the potential audience of everyone in the world. Also, you have to give the people what they want in terms of the visceral thrill of high cheekbones and big explosions, and this usually means tossing the incisive, keenly-observed bits of the story, and putting in the money shots.
Obviously, not all movies do this. The movies that you like on the second viewing, or ten years after you first see them, probably don't. The movie that you just saw and enjoyed but can't remember the name of the main character, probably did.
The play I saw tonight offered simple pleasures like well-turned sentences and intimacy with expressive actors. It had moments of theatrical beauty which, for better or worse, just aren't most people's cup of tea. One could say that is because theater is elitist and tends to cater to a literate upper-crust audience; or one could say that is because people don't like to think about their entertainment, and most movies are made so you don't have to think. Hence, they are more fun.
Some plays, most of mine for example, try to get around this by bringing back the populist elements of theater and leaving out the long draining talky parts. So you get plays that have kung-fu battles and musical numbers and, within reason, explosions....and that's all well and good. But it's still more taxing than a night out at the movies because you have to be in physical awe of the person who's actually doing that thing, because oh my god they're actually doing it. They Might Screw Up. In movies, you can just relax and go, "Hey look, Superman flies. He's probably gonna make it to the other side of the screen, and boy am I gonna feel good when that happens. Let's rewind and look at it again."
- Why is doing theater more fun than making films/videos, and why the heck am I making films/videos? -
The plays we did at Emerald Rain Productions (ERP) were, for the most part, like summer camp. Although the quality of the performances varied, the rehearsal process was almost always laughing, singing, dancing, screwing around, the best time I ever had spent with friends, with the added pathos that comes from the built-in finite length of the rehearsal and the play's run, Like the school year, you got to look forward to the bittersweet release of closing night, and the end.
I haven't made like 20 feature films so I'm not the expert, OK, but being on a movie set is not like that. There's too much stuff to do to ever enjoy yourself. All that you care about is that the footage you get can be edited into something that resembles fun, although no fun was had in its creation.
The thing is in films there is the illusory promise of living the "good" life. There's money in the film industry that pays for a lot of peoples' nice cars, nice houses, nice food. You might get pampered in a way that theater people never are. (It's always hilarious to watch "A Long Day's Journey Into Night" and try to imagine the world in which a patriarch could be a rich STAGE actor....) You might get to hang out with people who aren't constantly stressed out, as theater people are, by rent and day jobs and doing a two-hour live show four nights a week for an average of three audience members. You could get to be one of those elitist people, the kind who can, y'know, afford to go to theater.
That promise is a hollow crock of crap of course. But so many people are involved in the business of pursuing it, the hustling, starf*cking and misrepresenting yourself for a part of the Big Film, that the quality of human interactions in the film industry is much less honest and more generally agonizing than those in theater.
Theater is like getting to be in love with someone a little bit without most of the pain.
The fundamental unit of theater-making is communicating with other people.
You can't make a living off theater, but doing it is the best way to spend the moments of your life.
Fun with ESL
This will sound racist, but look, I'm Asian too. I think there should be a new subclass of mondegreen (misheard song lyric) devoted to Asian singers singing in their second language, perhaps to be called a "Mala-J-Popism." Consider this chestnut from Mika Nakashima's cover of "The Rose."
...
"Some say love it is a laser, that leaves your soul to breed."
Pretty deep, right?
...
"Some say love it is a laser, that leaves your soul to breed."
Pretty deep, right?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)