Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

I got a case of "The Reds" - a thread for Feature Writer/Directors

Finally -someone who agrees. I wanted so much to love this film, in part because I always shoot scenes backlit when outdoors, and in part because I am Ojibway, but I became fidgety wondering where the story was, and where it would go. The love story didn't work. It seemed to be more about choreographing imagery and actors in the frame rather than emotion. And here you've got some very high caliber actors to humanize these people, and it didn't happen. I thought I caught Colin Farrell wondering where his direction was going to come from...(Here's the DP thinking: well, we want to make sure we keep the sun behind his head for as much of the shot as possible...and CUT! Looks fantastic! Terry? What do you think? Did we get it? TM: Fabulous! (looks at continuity) We're going to use the wide and one close up for three minutes)

I had the same problem -I too fell asleep and had to rewind the DVD to go back to the spot I nodded off, and guess what? I didn't miss anything.

Malick had a chance to step it up, and to really take this part of North American history to the public and do some good -i.e. that not all Indians are savages and/or dumb, or whatever else people may have cooked in their brains. Instead the story will never have an opportunity to be told again on that budget scale. Really, really a shame.
 
I have 5 films in the works, as soon as I recive my 3 RED's I will start shoting some test in preproduction and casting sections for screen test ecc. then start Principal Photography shortly there after.

This ar part of a AutoBiography, casting and location scouting are also done by me, very very large and pretencious project but is going to be not only the first but also probably my last, so not only my Heart is in it but my all Soul.

Pretending to not only be the principal Actor but also, Co/Writer, Co/casting Director, Co/Director of Photography, Co/Director, Co/Producer, Co/Executive Producer and basically do put my two cents and a half in about anything also.

I already have being told more then once that I'm out of my mind for the way I intend to do this project and the list of Stars I espect to pool in to this project.

But, so waht, I can still try my absolute best, can I not?

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com
 
this is cool: yesterday i took a full day off from lurking on reduser to actually work on a script some folks have shown interest in. i wrote this script a year ago and now for the first time i was able to look at it with RED eyes. what a difference a year makes. i wrote so much more confidently knowing that the Red can handle it. i was able to add a bunch of stuff that will make the movie better. go back to your old scripts and look at em with Red eyes, you'll see what i mean...
 
I think my order number means there are about 6.7 billion people in line ahead of me, which means that some who have not yet been born will get their camera before I will. However, I do not wish any wars or pandemics or tsunamis on mankind just so I will move up in line. Reason is, thanks to this forum I am "going to school" on a lot of knowledge that is preparing me to make a better film.

Many on the REDUSER forum are experts, and many are RED principals. I do not want to become a builder of an imaging system or an expert in any one field of movie-making. I do want an overall perspective of how the parts fit while still retaining the holes in my knowledge-base that will cause me to jury-rig to achieve an aim.

While I'm thanking everyone who posts on this entire forum, the majority of my posts have been on this thread so I'm posting it here.

And in closing, I just want to say to all you wonderful guys on BIGREDUSERS, or whatever, that I will never for...(snff)... (sorry, give me a sec).................... that I will... be thinking of you wonderful guys every minute when I make my first film.

I Love you manz!!! (Are ya'll gonna drink that last Bud? Can I have it?)
 
Clint's 2 Cents Thrown Into the Ring

Clint's 2 Cents Thrown Into the Ring

I'll start off by saying that if you are making the movie for your own appreciation and for the love of making that movie- then you should make it how your passion dictates. If you want anyone else to enjoy it then I have something else to tell you...

It all starts with the script.​

If the script isn't good then the best director and the best actor can't fix it. Writing a good script is hard work and not something to be winged on set. A usable script can be built through rehearsals or ad libbing dialog within rigidly structured parameters based on a story structure that has been written and rewritten over months or years. Those are usually difficult to watch and create almost zero audience satisfaction.

I wouldn't go to the set with a script that I haven't polished to as close to perfect as I can. Once on the set I do want feedback from the actors and if there is time in the schedule I'll let them play it their way... once I get a solid take of my way. I see this on set flexibility as the final polish on the script and if there are very many changes that means you did a crappy job of writing before you got on set.

I value every frame captured and every word spoken. It takes weeks of going over each and every line, getting feedback and then doing it again. If this writing and rewriting process is attempted on set and under a time constraint (even if that constraint is just continuity with the light) then what happens is you find a line that works good enough and move on. You never realize that was only the third iteration on the way through ten others that were each better than the one before.

Every line can't be a memorably line but it can't be from lack of trying.

Going without a well developed script is a recipe for mediocrity at best. Maybe not mediocre material by everyones consideration, just that of the 99.99% of the people who are looking for a good story well told. If it is an artistic choice on your part and you are happy with it, that is good for you. Just be prepared for nobody else to want to watch it. If there are serendipitously beautiful moments and scenes you may end up with the equivalent of small, shiny objects that glitter and attract the eye but are devoid of any real deep content. It isn't a matter of this being a “new way of making film” since it has been tried many thousands of times in the past and it has been received with resounding financial, popular and critical indifference.

I have helped friends on two short film shoots like this. The first one had an outline with some dialog but quite a bit was done on the fly. This one was enjoyable to watch... for those who were involved with it and pretty much nobody else. The second one was almost entirely done on the fly and I don't think that they even bothered trying to edit it into something coherent. If they did they haven't let anyone know about it.

The script is the single most important element and everything else is a compromise towards achieving the ideal potential of that script. Casting the right talent is the biggest obstacle towards that ideal and the director can't fix miscast actors. Going with the non-professional actors is dangerous unless you get very, very lucky or you are a very, very good director. I've been lucky with some casting and I've also failed more than a couple actors because I wasn't a good enough director (hope I've learned from that). There is only one actor that I can think of that could not have been saved and I blame myself for casting him in the first place. An inexperienced actor can give a good performance if they have a strong understanding of the story and the part they play in it.

That isn't always the case as the following short clip from my rough cut attests... this guy right here knew the story better than anyone else and he still gives a stilted performance that I can't smooth over in editing. Fading early on him and grading the shot so we hardly see him helps but do you really want to have to do things like that?

I've done a little bit of storyboarding and I'm beta testing some animation/machinima software called Moviestorm with the idea of also using it to create animatics and extracting storyboards - as well as the animation is is being designed for. While it isn't going to be Zviz, I think that it will be a good tool to work the more demanding scenes out in.

As for directors who say that they wing the story and improvise most of it, I think that a lot of them fall into the same category as the actors who insist that they made up a lot of their dialog on the day... if you get your hands on the shooting script you'll find that damn near everything is in there right down to the umms, ahhs and smacking the hood of the taxi while saying “I'm walkin' here!”. Too many of them need validation so much that they will usurp credit wherever they can and the lowly scriptwriter is an easy target. I'm not saying that is the case with all of them, it is just a trend I have noted.

Of course, that is just my opinion and I may be proven wrong someday.
 
Clint,
preach on brother, preach on

Nice cover, you probably shot him.:gun: Kind of like the Dick Chainy hunting accident.

clips too short. I have to guess on the back story,
"I think that guy stole leftovers out of my fridge in collage, I just had to kill him." Putting laxitives in the milk just didn't send a strong enough message."
"I'm sorry you had to see that." "Could you help me drag this body?"
Sorry, I Get carried away.
Steve:gun:
 
I think there is a difference between directors who use a script as a complete blueprint and directors who use a script as a framework.

The directors who i'm aware of who do the latter, like Wong Kar Wai, don't go in with a handful of characters and start shooting. What they do is set up a theme, the relationships, detailed character studies of the main participants, and the emotional beats that underpin it all. Some allow a variety of input into the story and plot - WKW doesn't allow any - while other directors allow a lot more.

Some backstory on WKW - he was a professional writer for Hong Kong T.V and features. For those who don't know, the pace of production during that era was incredible. To be a head writer (as he was) you would work with a dozen different genres and need to know the complexities of each. You would also have to work at a non-leisurely pace in turning out material for a half dozen different departments (he won some awards for writing) while staying original (very competitive industry). WKW also was an ardent reader and fan of classic literature like Dostoevsky. From the interviews i've read and seen he has immense respect for the written word. And several of his films have stayed close to his written script (mostly to placate the Studio).

One of his methods is to come up with all the elements mentioned above, and then 'find' the movie as he shoots. With In the Mood For Love, and other flicks, he would find a coffee shop and write at the beggining and end of each shoot day, carefully crafting the plot and performances as the story and more importantly the themes emerged. I don't recommend anyone but very very talented writers/directors even attempt this. The fact that he eventually emerges with a multilayered movie is a testament to him knowing what material he will need to craft a story and plot from his general thematic and specific visual cues. I would venture, that for Mallick and WKW, they know that a great amount of the meaning from their films will come from the fleeting visual moments, compositions and the poetry naturally occuring with their locations, plus unexpected emotional beats of their actors. Check out Chris Doyles BBC interview where he talks about allowing the locaton to lend subtext and theme to a simple scene. Indeed, i can understand how merely using a framework could be a better shooting scenario for a specific director who has a great grasp of story (without the need to lay it all out) and has the backers who are willing to let the director explore it.

This whole way of shooting is akin to an experienced DP who throws away his light meter (or almost never takes it out) because he's so finely attuned to his craft. A writer/director who goes in with a bare framework had better be as accomplished with the craft of writing and story, unless it's a more experimental piece.

Regardless, there's more than one way to achieve resonance. And I have to agree with Tom that it's a rare director who can create movies this way. But when succeed there is a blend of naturalism and poignancy that is glorious.

Some writers, like Hemingway crafted every word to add to the total. Often, he'd go over one word until he found the perfect one. Doestevsky wrote in a rush of long handed exuberance (little editing afterword). Both found meaning and lasting legacies.

As others have mentioned - Script is Paramount. But for the very few, it's a springboard to something greater. Can you tell i really dug the "New World" ? hehe.

->>> WKW's "My Blueberry Nights" has a script that he filmed close to the original, so we'll know by Cannes (or a year later for us T.O guys :( if it's any good.
 
Great post, gbaby. Great post.

While I agree with Clint for 99% of directors, there are some, as gbaby has pointed out, who are able to really make a picture "happen on set." That is not to say they disregard writing. In fact Malick is considered to be a great writer and poet. He taught philosophy at MIT and translated Heidegger. And as gbaby pointed out, WKW comes from a writing background as well.

I don't say that I want to only have a light script for my first feature because I am too lazy to write one or that I don't like writing. I come from a writing background as a novelist, speechwriter and professional writer for more than 10 years. It's just that film is such a visual medium for me that I want to be able to go with the flow and take advantage to opportunities I see come up as we're shooting.

Still, having said this, maybe I will find that I personally don't have the talent to pull this off. And generally speaking, as Clint notes, trying to shoot a feature without a full, great script falls under the category of: "don't try this at home."
 
I think that my little snippet of a scene actually illustrates rather well my philosophy on creating movies and television.

The story called for the killer to be interrupted before he could complete his job. That could have been accomplished any of a thousand ways and maybe there are directors who could have pulled something beautiful out of the moment. Me, I wrote and rewrote it until I have a couple layers there and was happy with it. I found I wanted to show that the killer is a bit of a coward to start with so that he has an arc towards a more blasé attitude after he is killed- so I had him chased off by a single unarmed man. I decided to put in a dig to all those scenes where the hero coming to the rescue the day and boldly states that “I won't let anything happen to you.” by immediately cutting to the morgue with the guy slabbed out. On top of that, I decided that there was great meta irony in having the line delivered by the writer/director who is in the process of destroying everything this character holds dear... I like that. It might not be great writing but I like that layering both within the story and back out into the real world... as long as it doesn't take too many people out of the story.

And Steve, this is actually pulled from the first minute of the show and at that point there is no back story. Arlyss has to figure out who killed him and why.

I do think that a lot of the films like those of Wong Kar Wai and Malick are vague enough that most of their greatness is projected upon them by the viewer and very little is actually contained within the film itself. It seems that a small percentage of the population will subconsciously connect the dots and fill in the storyline with something that resonates deeply with them. When there is too much structure for them they will not enjoy the film anywhere near as much. For them I am glad that they have these beautiful shot films that let them fill in the blanks. I don't think that there will ever be much wide spread appeal to these films though since the vast majority of the population wants the story to be up there on the screen.

I want the story up there on the screen but I want it to be a thing of beauty itself, structured and layered and well plotted. This is more important to me than the cinematography... but I'll still strive for the beautiful visuals to bolster the story.

Maybe I am missing out and the enjoyment a person gets out of this intellectual interaction with the filmmaker gives them a far richer movie going experience than I will ever have. Just remember that the best that one can hope for with this type of film is a small handful of heartfelt fans and it will be damned hard to find those few.

It is nice that we both usually get a movie or two each year that suits our tastes.
 
In the cases of Malick and Wong, they have more than a handful of very loyal and dedicated fans.

Just me personally, I would rather please myself and please astute cinema fans than make Michael-Bay style movies that rake in huge cash and audiences. That is not to say I don't dream of making a blockbuster. Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.
 
Tom said:
Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.
Click to expand...

Unless someone is financially independent they are going to have to figure that blend out. If you can make a very low budget movie you don't need to sell your soul provided enough fans pay.

When I was watching some behind the scenes for Lord of the Rings I was very surprised to find the actors were given new dialog almost daily. It was literally being rewritten on the set.

I think there's plenty of room for high concept movies that actually have a brain & soul too. But writing one ain't exactly easy. :-)
 
Tom said:
In the cases of Malick and Wong, they have more than a handful of very loyal and dedicated fans.

Just me personally, I would rather please myself and please astute cinema fans than make Michael-Bay style movies that rake in huge cash and audiences. That is not to say I don't dream of making a blockbuster. Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.
Click to expand...

Wong Kar Wai and Terrence Malick do only have a handful of fans. The opening weekend for In the Mood for Love was $113,280 and its total box office in the US barely topped $2.7 million. It took 112 days in release to get to that. His 2046 made only about half of that.

The New World cost over $30 million dollars and on its opening weekend it took in a grand total of $57,000. The $12.7 million that it ended up making over about 120 days probably didn't even cover the advertising and promotions budget.

They don't have enough fans to make their movies economically viable unless they are done on a very, very small scale. The financiers for Wong's The Lady from Shanghai have to be worried about putting $15 million into a film with a guy who just doesn't have enough fans to pay that back. I wouldn't be surprised if Malick's Tree of Life doesn't make it into production at all because nobody wants to spend $50 million dollars to get back $25 million.

This is a viable area to work in if you know that there aren't going to be a lot of people paying to see your movies and budget appropriately. It will be hard for you to get anything made and brutally hard to get anyone to distribute it once it is made. If that is where your muse takes you then that is where you should go... just don't expect many people to follow you.

If you make movies like Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, that are incredibly good films and very popular, then you will continue making movies even when you get a clunker or three. This means Ridley Scott will have four films in production and nine more in development... along with four television projects in production.
 
In the Mood for Love was quite a hit in Asia, I believe. It certainly brought prestige and recognition to Hong Kong cinema, so I really wouldn't judge a film like that based on what retarded American audiences thought of it. I'm sure Larry the Cable guy made more money its opening weekend than any of Wong's films, but who cares. Big Momma's House 2 drove The New World from my local multiplex, but again, this only shows the retardation of the general public.

You are not going to convince artists like Wong or Malick to give up making the types of films they want to make. Indeed, the reason they keep getting funded is because they are artists, and deep down, many of these studio people still want to feel like they are making art and contributing something to humanity. So they greenlight 20 stupid movies and kick Malick down 30 mil on the side so they can retain at least a few shreds of honor, dignity, and hope. :)

I agree with you, though, that it's probably a good idea to mix your art films with some crowdpleasers, so you can keep making pictures. I think Darren Aronofsky just learned that lesson.
 
Clint Johnson said:
They don't have enough fans to make their movies economically viable unless they are done on a very, very small scale. The financiers for Wong's The Lady from Shanghai have to be worried about putting $15 million into a film with a guy who just doesn't have enough fans to pay that back.
Click to expand...
Clint, with all due respect, that is just wrong. Wong Kar Wai can easily finance his films because they are so profitable - not Spidey profitable, but profitable. He has a few key realtionships with E.U backers (France's Canal plus/ Paradis) that he co-produces with. If you take a look a box office mojo (which doesn't include DVD sales) his films return a decent profit , mostly through overseas markets. If you include DVD sales, he is as good as a municipal bond. While the U.S is one of the largest markets in the world it isn't the only one. Also, since he has a decent following they don't have trouble marketing the film overseas - it's sort of like how a Marty Scorsese pic carries it's own marketing buzz in the U.S.

WKW co-funds his films with his jet tone productions and has a decent E.U bank sharing equity/ completion (funds) business model (the closest comparable is the Weinsteins line of credit).

Recently, he's wanted to branch out and try some Western movies (at least with Western stars) which is why there's negotiations involved. It's not the budget or roi they were contemplating but his mode of working. However, he's in the enviable position of being able to work when he wants to work up to a certain budget (I'd guesstimate around 18 million).

For some, having a smaller piece of the lemon pie is a fair deal.



:beer:
 
They did do marginally better in some foreign markets but they still only get a sliver of the audience and I don't really think that it is because the all of the other 99.99% can't appreciate great film.

If filmmakers like Wong and Malick gave up making the types of films they want to make then the world would be the poorer for it. That said, I have to count myself amongst the "retarded" who find their work shallow and uninteresting... but full of pretty pictures.

I did sit through The New World and didn't hate it... it just left me bored and fighting sleep. I don't know if Big Momma's House 2 was any more interesting because nobody held a gun to my head to make me watch it.
 
Gbabymogul said:
Clint, with all due respect, that is just wrong. Wong Kar Wai can easily finance his films because they are so profitable - not Spidey profitable, but profitable. He has a few key realtionships with E.U backers (France's Canal plus/ Paradis) that he co-produces with. If you take a look a box office mojo (which doesn't include DVD sales) his films return a decent profit , mostly through overseas markets. If you include DVD sales, he is as good as a municipal bond. While the U.S is one of the largest markets in the world it isn't the only one. Also, since he has a decent following they don't have trouble marketing the film overseas - it's sort of like how a Marty Scorsese pic carries it's own marketing buzz in the U.S.

WKW co-funds his films with his jet tone productions and has a decent E.U bank sharing equity/ completion (funds) business model (the closest comparable is the Weinsteins line of credit).

Recently, he's wanted to branch out and try some Western movies (at least with Western stars) which is why there's negotiations involved. It's not the budget or roi they were contemplating but his mode of working. However, he's in the enviable position of being able to work when he wants to work up to a certain budget (I'd guesstimate around 18 million).

For some, having a smaller piece of the lemon pie is a fair deal.



:beer:
Click to expand...

$12 million box office over the entire planet means that there weren't very many people wanting to see In the Mood for Love. Like I said, it is a viable area to work in as long as you budget appropriately... and if you try and budget $15 million for The Lady from Shanghai you gotta be worried. Especially when you tack on the prints and advertising that add millions of dollars all on their own. You also have to remember that the production company will get less than half of that box office – the theatre has to make money too. So to break even, that $15 million movie will have to gross over $40 million from all sources.

His 2046 had a working budget of $12 million and it made about $20 million world wide. Box Office Mojo doesn't give DVD sales but for the sake of argument let's say that they cancel out the P&A that Mojo also doesn't include in the numbers. Getting half of that box office puts them $2 million in debt.

They don't give a budget for In the Mood for Love but working backwards, for that $12 million to beat a safe and modest 10% bond it couldn't have cost much more than $3 million... and that is with zero security. It could easily have been Happy Together and only make $320,000.

I'll stand by that being a tiny audience appropriate only for low budget films that are risky and rarely profitable. I admire him for being able to keep making films the way he wants to... I'm just glad that way doesn't interest me in the least. I want to make beautiful, well constructed stories that are also very popular because those are generally the kind of movies that I love.

Tom said:
To each his own, my friend.
Click to expand...

And that is one of the things that make the world a more interesting and beautiful place. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of following their dreams, I just want to give them a heads up and let them know that the path they are on is fraught with danger, difficulty and heartbreak... and then wish them the very best of luck.
 
"The Reds" Respect the Craft

"The Reds" Respect the Craft

Definitely have the fever "The Reds." Obsessing on the website, talked to Jared on the phone for twenty minutes today and googled every imaginable review. I've shot two features in as many years. The last one, which was a comedy, mystery, musical we finished on April 14, 2007 and was SAG ultra-low with actors from the wire, and the upcoming Vivica Fox movie THREE CAN PLAY THAT GAME I will definitely continue to do SAG films bc the actors are held accountable. I currently use an hvx200 with redrock and zeiss prime set. Having just heard this week of RED on apple's final cut site I will reserve my red next week complete with the works (prime set, 300mm, lcd and possible viewfinder.) I have three scripts done and ready so I'm dissapointed that I won't be able to use the RED until Jan. 2008 but I won't wait to get the RED before I shoot another. However, the prospect of being able to do 35mm camera quality is awesome. So until I get it in the mail I'll write and shoot. I'll use what I have to tell great stories. First it was poetry, then stage now it's with motion pictures that I convey a message. The media is the vehicle and without a driver the vehicle is an empty shell. If you can ride a bike to meet friends and connect, even though it takes four times as long then driving, but you don't have a car it wouldn't make sense not to meet your friends because you don't have a car. So, tell your story because you respect the craft and want to add to what's real. Technology does not drive stories, people do. RED is wow but only one thing legitamizes a movie maker and that's their passion to tell stories through pictures. Be easy. Tell a story that'll encourage a child to believe in love, a grandmother to keep hoping that her grands will visit tomorrow or a father not to abuse his little ones.
 
Welcome, Eleeahoo!

Are you in LA?
 
Thanks Tom. I'm on the East coast. Baltimore, MD. Query: I've tried to load my 20 KB Jpeg pic but it won't load. Any suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top